
BY THE REV. C. M. BUTLER, D. D. 



IJntestftiit (Spt0C*p*l JDtrtrine 

ANl 

Cl)vircl) Unitt). 



BY THE 

REV. C. M. BUTLER, D.D., 

LATE PROFESSOR IN THE DIVINITY SCHOOL OF THE PROTESTANT 
EPISCOPAL CHURCH, WEST PHILADELPHIA. 



NEW YORK: 

THOMAS WHITTAKEB, 
2 and 3 Bible H#use. 
1887. 



Copyright, 1887, 
By THOMAS WHITTAKER. 

In exch, 
of C. Pub. ub 



Press of J. J. Little & Co. 
As tor Place, New York. 



INTR©DUCT#RY. 



The various Evangelical Churches #f the land 
are, at this time, solemnly considering and ear- 
nestly praying f#r the removal ®f obstacles t* 
a union on some mutually satisfactory basis @f 
doctrine and discipline. The first step toward 
such a blessed consummation evidently is to 
consider the points in which they already agree. 
If on no more enlarged consensus, they can at 
first begin on an acceptance of The Apostles' 
and Nicene Creeds. From this initial point 
they may hope gradually to draw nearer and 
nearer to each other, until at length they may 
all become one. The more closely they are 
united in the unity of the Spirit, the more likely 
they are to become one in faith. 

But the accomplishment of this great result 
must be the work of time. It cannot be brought 
about by calling upon the churches at once to 
sacrifice cherished denominational customs and 
traditions. If it is to succeed, it must be by the 
increase of the present growing and fraternal 
love of Christians, of different denominations, 



4 



IKTKODUCTOKY. 



for each other, and such a sense of the suprem- 
acy of the Christian life over all forms and 
doctrines, and such a consciousness of the joy 
and blessedness of union on the great saving 
fundamental facts of the Gospel as will make 
minor peculiarities of doctrine and discipline, if 
they remain, take their place of subordination, 
or gradually drop out of the confessions and 
consciousness of the churches. 

At a time like this, it is, therefore, important 
that each church should come to a distinct un- 
derstanding of what its feelings and position are 
in reference to this great question of the union 
of all that love the Lord Jesus Christ, if not in 
one organization, at least in a co-equal confedera- 
tion and mutual intercommunion on the basis 
of a simple formula of doctrine and discipline. 
Each church should, as it were, draw near to, and 
place itself by, the side of every other church, 
and study its constitution, its doctrine, and its 
spirit, and then see how near it is to them, and 
how it might be brought nearer by modifica- 
tions which would wear the aspect of privilege 
rather than of concession, in view of the great 
results to be thereby obtained. 

In most of the Evangelical churches there is, 
I believe, no serious diversity in reference to 
fundamental doctrine or obligatory discipline. 



INTRODUCTORY. 



5 



The question of a farther probation in the ease 
of those who have died without a knowledge of 
the Gospel, which is now agitating some of the 
Congregational churches, is at the most a doubt- 
ful inference and a hope on the part of those 
who accept the suggestion, and is not likely to 
form an article in a new creed, or to lead to the 
disruption of a body which is held in unity by 
very elastic bands, which will bear much tension. 
This condition is so far favorable to church 
union. 

It is generally felt that the greatest obstacle 
to a union of the churches is the doctrine that 
Episcopacy is essential to the being of the 
Church. A very large portion of the clergy of 
our Church, and a considerable but smaller num- 
ber of the laity hold that view. It is evident, 
from its very terms, that they cannot surrender 
or modify a doctrine which they regard as fun- 
damental and of supreme and perpetual obliga- 
tion. The other churches, therefore, conclude 
that all approaches of the Episcopal Church 
toward unity are, and must be, merely an invi- 
tation to them to accept this doctrine, and enter 
our church, or at least secure Episcopal ordina- 
tion. It is difficult to see how they can come 
to any other conclusion. So long as this state 
of things continues, it seems to our brethren of 



6 



INTRODUCTORY. 



other denominations, and to many churchmen 
of less exclusive views, that it is useless to look 
for any union of the churches in which the Epis- 
copal Church shall be included. In addition 
to this obstacle, another, equally formidable, has 
been recently introduced. It has been pro- 
posed to change the name of the Church, and 
adopt one which wall express or involve the 
claim that we are the only Church in the United 
States, or that the only other body which can 
be recognized as true, besides our own, is the 
Roman Catholic Church. This proposal re- 
ceived an unexpected support in the last Gen- 
eral Convention. The only concession which 
churchmen of this class make to the members 
of other churches is that, if they have been bap- 
tized, they may be good Christians, but that 
they are not members of a Church, because their 
ministers are not in the line of the Apostolic 
Succession, and because their ministrations, 
therefore, are unauthorized and null. A strange 
conclusion, surely, on the part of those who be- 
lieve that the grace of God comes to souls only 
through the true Church and the authorized 
ministry — the conclusion that men may become 
as good Christians without a Church as with it ! 

So prominently, since the late General Con- 
vention, has this class of churchmen occupied 



INTRODUCTORY. 



7 



public attention, that a common impression pre- 
vails that the j are the rightful exponents of a 
well-nigh universal sentiment, and give true ex- 
pression to the prevailing opinions and spirit of 
the Church. I do not profess to know how far 
this may be the case ; but I am certain that 
there is also a large number of the clergy and 
laity — large relatively to our small numbers — 
who entertain much more moderate opinions. 
It has seemed to the author of this little book 
that it would be timely to demonstrate and call 
attention anew to the fact that such views of 
the Episcopacy, Sacraments, and Ritual as now 
so largely prevail were utterly unknown to 
those who framed our standards, and can be 
distinctly traced as having their origin in Arch- 
bishop Laud and a small group of like-minded 
divines who gathered about him, under the pat- 
ronage and fostering care of the misguided 
King Charles I. 

But it may be asked — what good purpose 
can be accomplished by such an exhibition ? I 
answer in the first place, as I have already stated, 
that it is extremely important that each church 
should come to a distinct understanding as to 
what its feelings and position are in reference to 
this great question of the union of the churches. 
I add that, believing as I do that the views pre- 



8 



INTRODUCTORY. 



sented in this little book would form the best 
basis for the ultimate organic union of the 
churches, it is well that it should be kept before 
them, in the hope that they may grow into the 
conviction and the consciousness of increasing 
numbers within and without the Church. The 
grounds here presented will be much less offen- 
sive to the other denominations than those of a 
more exclusive and excluding character. No im- 
mediate or near results maybe looked for. But 
no student of Church History can have failed to 
observe how opinions upon church doctrine and 
discipline come and go, by the law of action 
and reaction. I do not deem it fanciful, in view 
of the past, to hope for a reaction from the ex- 
clusive and sacerdotal views, which now so 
widely prevail, which will result in a return to 
the position of the churchmen of the days of 
Queen Elizabeth and King James. There can 
be little doubt that, if our Church adhered with 
a general unanimity to the views here presented, 
there would be much more hope of union on this 
basis of a moderate and not unchurching Epis- 
copate. It is true that there would still remain 
the preface to our Ordinal and the doctrine of 
Episcopacy by apostolic appointment, which 
could not be surrendered. But its maintenance 
in such a form would be much less offensive to 



INTRODUCTORY. 



9 



our brethren of other churches than it is now. 
It would throw no contempt upon their orders. 
Their minds would be more free from prejudice 
in the examination of our polity and ritual. Even 
under the present repelling circumstances, many 
clergymen of other churches have adopted some 
portions of our ritual. Many of us have been 
made the recipients of the confessions of clergy- 
men of other churches that, but for the prevail- 
ing high ritualism and the exclusive claims, 
and the exaggerated doctrines of the Eucha- 
rist, they would have long since come into the 
Church. Those who have yielded, or would 
have yielded to such influences as these, would 
have soon been led to see that a moderate 
Episcopacy is the natural complement of the 
system which they would already have received 
in part. 



CONTENTS. 



I. The Church Catholic and the Protestant 

Episcopal Church 13 

II. Episcopacy of Apostolic Appointment 49 

III. The Relatton of Episcopacy to the Being 

of the Church 93 

IV. The Church's Doctrine of the Sacraments. 133 



I. 

THE CHURCH CATHOLIC 

AND THE 

PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 



Reasons for the discussion. — Meaning of the XlXth Ar- 
ticle. — The visible Church Catholic of Christ not an organ- 
ized and recognizable body, invested with authority to decree 
articles of faith. — The preface to the Ordinal considered. — 
It asserts the past continued existence of the Episcopal or 
three-fold form of the Christian ministry. — The claims that 
Bishops succeed the Apostles in their office considered. —The 
consequences of this doctrine described.— Conclusion. 



CHAPTER I. 



It may be remarked that most of the errors, 
as I deem them, on the subject of the Church 
and ministry are errors because they go beyond 
and add to, and thus, in their ultimate develop- 
ment, logically destroy the doctrines which are 
maintained in our standards. Some of them in- 
deed appear to be in direct opposition to those 
standards. But they were at first only addi- 
tions. They came and took their place by the 
side of the definitions of the Church, as subor- 
dinate and allied, but effective forces ; but soon, 
yielding to their repellant and hostile instincts, 
they drew oft' and assumed a position of antago- 
nism to those doctrines which they came pro- 
fessedly to serve. 

Cardinal Newman's definition of corruption 
of doctrine is, that " it is the destruction of the 
norm or type." " It is the abandonment of a 
line of thought." " It is that which reverses the 
course of development. " " It is that state of an 
idea which undoes its previous advances." But, 
says Dr. Mozely in his Theory of Development 



16 



PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 



(pp. 34, 35), " this definition simply omits the 
whole notion of corruption by excess. Corruption 
being defined the loss of type, that exaggeration 
which is not this, is not corruption. It is open 
to any one to deny the correctness and complete- 
ness of Mr. Newman's definition, and to assert 
that there is a kind of corruption which is not a 
whole departure from the original type, but 
which carries out that type excessively and ex- 
travagantly ; that such a kind is seen in life and 
morals ; and that it may take place in religious 
systems too." 

I shall pursue, therefore, a natural course, if 
I first state the doctrine of our Church stand- 
ards, and then indicate the additions to, and de- 
partures from, them. 

The first point to which I call attention is the 
doctrine of the Church on the constitution of the 
Church and ministry. 

I will first examine what are the views which our 
Church entertains bf the visible Church Catholic 
of Christ. Her sentiments upon the subject may 
be found in our Book of Common Prayer. The 
XlXth Article contains a general description of 
the visible Church of Christ. In giving such a 
description, it of course limits its definition to 
those comprehensive features under which all 
branches of the visible Church Catholic of Christ 



AND CHUECH UNITY. 



17 



may be included. Its language is as follows : — 
" The visible Church of Christ is a congregation 
of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of 
God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly 
ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all 
those things that of necessity are requisite to 
the same. 5 ' This article brings out the follow- 
ing positions : — (1.) The visible Church is a con- 
gregation or aggregate of faithful or believing 
men. (2.) In this congregation the pure word 
of God is preached. (3.) The Sacraments are 
administered in conformity to Christ's ordinance 
— at least in such a degree of conformity as to 
retain those things which are essential to the 
being of the Sacrament.* Here the visible 
Church is made to depend on the pure preach- 
ing of the "Word, and the right administration of 
the Sacraments ; while no definition is given of 
what is to be considered the preaching which is 
sufficiently pure, and the administration which is 
sufficiently in conformity to Christ's institution, 
to constitute so called churches true portions 
of the Church Catholic of Christ. The senti- 
ment of the Church on this latter subject is 

* Additions to the Sacraments do not annul them, though 
they corrupt them with that adulterate mixture. But if any 
part of the institution is cut off, then we do not own the Sac- 
rament to be true. — Buknet on the Articles, page 222. 



18 PKOTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTEIKE 



either stated elsewhere, or is to be inferred from 
other sources, or it has not been expressed. My 
own conviction is that it has not been expressed. 
She did not feel called upon to state what was 
the extent, and what were the boundaries of the 
visible Church of Christ. She has not any- 
where expressed her ability to do so. She has 
contented herself with stating what is the gen- 
eral rule, without pretending that it was in her 
own power accurately and dogmatically to apply 
it. Then, in her ordination service, she states 
what she has adopted for herself. The case is 
parallel to that of an individual. We may say 
that the reception of God's truth is necessary to 
the possession of Christian character and hope. 
We may state what, in our belief, is the pure 
Word of God — what are the great saving doc- 
trines of the Bible. The reception of these, we 
say, in general terms, is necessary to the reality 
of Christian character. We feel them to be 
necessary for ourselves. But having made the 
statement, there we rest. We dare not say of 
an individual professor or believer, who receives 
a part and rejects a part of truth, that he can- 
not be a Christian — that his hope is baseless 
and his woe inevitable. So our Church states 
that God's pure Word and Christ's true Sacra- 
ments are necessary to the being of the Church. 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



19 



But she refrains from so defining what shall be 
considered, for the entire Church, the pure word 
and the true Sacraments, as that she shall, by a 
dogmatic definition, cut off any bodies which 
have borne the Christian name, from being con- 
stituent portions of the Church Catholic of 
Christ.* 

This we think is evident from the conclusion 
of the XlXth Article. Notwithstanding she has 
designated the pure preaching of the "Word as a 
mark of the visible Church of Christ, she goes 
on to add that " as the Church at Jerusalem, 
Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred ; so also 
the Church at Eome hath erred, not only in 
their living and manner of ceremonies, but also 
in matters of faith." Here she gives the title of 
Churches to those bodies which have erred in 
matters of faith ; notwithstanding she had de- 
clared the pure preaching of the Word to be 
a mark of the visible Church of the Redeemer. 
In doing this, she seems to me evidently to use 
language equivalent to this : " We gather from 



* The defining of fundamental articles seem on the one 
hand to deny salvation to such as do not receive them all, 
which men are not willing to do. 

And on the other hand, it may seem a leaving men at 
liberty, as to all other particulars that are not reckoned up 
among the fundamentals. — Burnet on the Articles,page 222. 



20 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

the word of God that the possession of certain 
truths and institutions is necessary to the being 
of the Church. Yet we refrain from defining 
precisely what is necessary to constitute these 
truths and institutions ; or whether various 
bodies have held enough of truth, and of the 
essentials of these institutions, along with their 
errors and corruptions, to enable them still to 
be constituent portions of the Church Catholic 
of Christ.' , Such we take to be the tenor of 
the Article. We can make nothing of it, if 
this be not its meaning. 

Now if these statements be well founded, sev- 
eral important inferences follow. 

1. Our Church has nowhere furnished infalli- 
ble tests by which we can go through existing 
Christendom or through history, and set apart, 
on the right hand and on the left, true and 
false churches ; even as a shepherd divideth 
the sheep from the goats. 

2. In the definition which she has given of 
the marks of the visible Church, she has not 
specified succession — which is an external and 
visible fact — but purity of preaching, and truth 
of Sacraments, which are points of more diffi- 
cult and doubtful ascertainment. 

3. In stating [that the pure preaching and 
right administration of the Sacraments are the 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



21 



marks of the visible Church. Catholic of Christ, 
and at the same time abstaining from defining 
what constitutes the one and the other, she 
has declined to express an opinion as to what 
degree of error destroys the being of a Church, 
and as to what degree of conformity to the 
institutions of Scripture must be retained to 
enable a professedly Christian society to be 
a portion of the Church Catholic of Christ. 

4. By stating that the pure preaching of the 
Word and the due administration of Sacra- 
ments are necessary to constitute Christian 
Churches, and by defining for herself what 
shall be considered such, she has indicated the 
direction in which we should search for those 
communities which are best entitled to be re- 
garded as true portions of the Church Catholic 
of Christ. Those communions which are most 
like ourselves in those two particulars, of pure 
preaching and right administration of Sacra- 
ments, we may, by an irresistible inference, 
conclude to be, in her judgment, best entitled 
to that distinction. 

5. Such is the testimony of Bishop Harold 
Brown, in his Exposition of the XXXIX Arti- 
cles. u The formularies of our Church have ex- 
pressed no judgment, as to how far the very 
being of a Church may be imperilled by a defect 



22 PROTESTAKT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 



in this particular note of the Church [The power 
of the keys] or by mutilation of the Sacraments, 
imperfect ordination, or defective exercise of 
the power of the Keys. The English Church 
has been content to give her decision as to 
the right mode of ordaining, ministering sac- 
raments and exercising discipline, without ex- 
pressing an opinion on the degree of defective- 
ness in such matters, which would cause other 
communions to cease from being Churches of 
Christ." * (P. 467.) 

* The XlXth Article is by many persons considered 
to refer to any one visible Church, whether national or 
diocesan. So considered, it is no less available for our 
argument. In that case, the same marks are considered 
necessary to constitute any professed Churches real por- 
tions of the Church Catholic of Christ. 

Those who regard Episcopacy as essential to the exist- 
ence of a Church, fasten upon the expression, "the Sacra- 
ments be duly administered according to Christ's ordinance, 
in all things that of necessity are requisite to the same." 
They contend that they cannot be thus administered unless 
by ministers regularly commissioned by the successors of 
the Apostles. But it would be easy to show that this was 
not the sentiment of the framers of the Service. It is a 
fact beyond all question that Cranmer, and Ridley, and 
Jewel, used just this language, and that they make it 
evident by their language and their conduct, that an Epis- 
copally ordained ministry was never regarded by them as 
necessary to the due administration of the Sacraments, in 
those things that of necessity were requisite to the same. 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



23 



This wise moderation has not always been 
adhered to by some of the members of our 
communion. Much has been added to this def- 
inition. 

1. Not content with expressing, with our 
Creed, a belief that there is one holy Catholic 
Church, which is the object of our faith and not 
of our sight — as are all the other particulars in 
which we express belief in the creed — the at- 
tempt has been made to show where it is, by 
what boundaries it has been defined, and what 
bodies of professed Christians are without it, 
and what within. 

2. Nor only so. It is not with the marks 
stated by our Church that the attempt has been 
made to designate the true and false Churches, 
which are to be included in, or excluded from, 
the visible Church Catholic of Christ. Those 
marks are the pure Word preached and the Sac- 
raments duly administered. Another mark, not 
only over and above, but apparently to the ex- 
clusion of those mentioned, has by some been in- 
troduced. This is succession. Those Churches 
are said to be true, which have retained the 
apostolic succession, however corrupt they may 

The author hopes to prove this point abundantly in a 
larger work on this subject, which he is laboring, among 
many other cares and toils, to prepare for the press. 



24 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 



be in doctrine ; and those false, or rather unreal, 
which have lost the succession, however pure 
they may be in doctrine.* 

3. And from these additions to the moderate 
statements of our Church, others have naturally 
arisen. As a consequence of the position last 
stated, it has been assumed that the Church 
Catholic does not only retain the truth and in- 
stitutions whose possession makes it to be the 
universal visible Church ; but that it is a recog- 
nizable body, which retains all catholic truth, 

* The whole controversy with Rome was never more ably 
conducted than by the divines of the Church of England 
during the reign of the popish King James II. They never 
took the ground indicated above. Though they lived long 
after the days of Laud, and had heard the doctrines of ex- 
clnsiveness often from the writers of Laud's day, they 
never adopt it in their controversy with Rome. In Gib- 
sou's Preservative — that vast repository of arms against 
Rome — there will be found the fuM and repeated admission, 
that — not succession, but — a profession of true Christian 
faith and a reception of Sacraments was enough to consti- 
tute individuals and Churches constituent portions of the 
Catholic Church. The following is a specimen of their 
language on this subject ; — 

" The whole number of Christians in all ages and places ; 
every individual person that hath given up his name to 
Christ, and makes profession of his religion, is a member 
of this Church, and all of them together make up the Cath- 
olic Church, or the mystical body of Christ." — Gibson's 
Preservative, Title III. page 4. 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



25 



and has authority to determine what is such ; 
and that failure to receive her teachings is trea- 
son against the established institutions of Christ 
and his Apostles. There is no proof that our 
Church holds to such a doctrine. Nor can it 
be proved by any line of argument to be in it- 
self plausible or true. (L) The necessity for 
such a teaching, visible Church, must be as- 
sumed, and cannot be proved. (2.) No word or 
institution of Christ, no testimony of the Apos- 
tles, can be adduced in proof that it was con- 
templated by them. (3.) The impossibility of 
proving or disproving the fact of apostolic suc- 
cession, on which the existence of churches is 
made mainly to depend, confutes the assump- 
tion, because it makes it evident that we cannot 
learn with certainty what are the true limits of 
the Church. (4.) The consent of these churches, 
the topics on which they have unanimously 
agreed, cannot be ascertained. So that, in the 
first place, it cannot be ascertained what body 
of Churches constitute the Church which is to 
teach ; and, in the next place, it cannot be ascer- 
tained what their teaching is. When we cannot 
find what the lesson is, nor a teacher to tell us, we 
may safely conclude that there is no teaching. 
There is a Holy Catholic Church whose exist- 
ence is recognized in the Creed. But I deny 



26 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTKIKE 



that it is a defined, organized, ascertainable 
body ; and that it subserves any such purpose.* 

So much for the views of our Church, and the 
additions to them, on the subject of the visible 
Church Catholic of Christ. 

We have seen that our standards decline to 
pronounce what is the purity of doctrine, and 
what the degree of conformity to the institutions 
of Christ, which are necessary to constitute 
Christian communities portions of the universal 
Church. For herself, however, she declares what 
doctrines she and her ministers maintain. She 

* This idea of a catholic consent, of the authoritative 
voice of the Church, of the teachings of the Catholic 
Church, is altogether Romish, and unknown to our best 
apologists and defenders of the Church of an earlier day. 
In Gibson's Preservative, this is the language used on that 
subject : — 

" No organized Church can be the Catholic Church/' 
"The Catholic Church being no organized body, has no 
authority, and can have no tribunal." 

" It has no authority. For the whole company of the 
faithful, which is the true notion of the Catholic Church, 
are the mystical body of Christ, and in subjection to him as 
a wife is in subjection to her husband. Now if the Catho- 
lic Church be only a company of private and particular 
Christians united immediately to Christ, and made one body 
in him, the Catholic Church has no more authority than 
particular Christians have, which is none at all." The 
True Notion of the Catholic Church Explained and Stated, 
page 39. 



AND CHUKCH UNITY. 



27 



avows her sentiments as to the constitution of 
the Christian ministry, and the nature of the 
Sacraments ; and declares conformity to them 
to be necessary by her own ministers and mem- 
bers. 

On the subject of the constitution of the min- 
istry, her language, in the preface to the ordina- 
tion services, is as follows : — " It is evident unto 
all men diligently reading Holy Scriptures and 
ancient authors, that from the Apostles 5 time, 
there have been these three orders of ministers 
in Christ s Church — Bishops, Priests, and Dea- 
cons, which officers were evermore held in such 
reverend estimation that no man might presume 
to execute any of them except he were first 
called, tried, examined, and known to have such 
qualities as are requisite for the same ; and also 
by public prayer, with imposition of hands, were 
approved and admitted thereunto by lawful 
authority. And therefore, to the intent that 
these orders may be continued and reverently 
used and esteemed in this Church, no man shall 
be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, 
Priest, or Deacon in this Church, or suffered to 
execute any of the said functions, except he be 
called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, 
according to the form hereafter following, or 
hath had Episcopal consecration or ordination." 



28 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 



This is the entire and authoritative statement 
of the Church upon the subject — a statement in 
no respect modified or enlarged by other por- 
tions of our standard of faith or offices of devo- 
tion. What does it announce ? 

1. It announces the fact that from the Apos- 
tles' time there have been these three orders of 
ministers in Christ's Church — Bishops, Priests, 
and Deacons. 

2. It announces that these offices were always 
held in such reverend estimation that no man 
might presume to execute any of them except he 
were first called, tried, examined, and known to 
have such qualities as are requisite to the same ; 
and also by public prayer, with imposition of 
hands, were approved and admitted thereto, by 
lawful authority. This is a declaration that no 
persons were admitted to these offices except 
upon examination, approval, and the laying on 
of hands, by the constituted authority of the 
Church. 

3. It announces that no person shall betaken 
to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in this 
Church, — in this Church of England, as the pre- 
face to the English service originally ran — or 
suffered to execute any of their functions unless 
he shall have had Episcopal ordination. 

This is all that our Church has announced 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



29 



on the subject of the three orders of the min- 
istry. 

The additions to these moderate statements 
have been numerous and important. 

1. It is, for instance, a usual statement of the 
doctrine of our Church that Christ Himself estab- 
lished the three orders of the ministry. From 
many of the popular treatises on Episcopacy it 
would be inferred that Christ, during his life on 
earth, established these orders ; and that the 
Church was then completely organized before 
His Ascension. It would be inferred from these 
treatises that such was the doctrine of our 
Church. But our standards say not so. They 
state that from the Apostles' time there have 
been these three orders in the Church. If from 
the Apostles' time, then surely not before their 
time. The language of the preface plainly im- 
plies that this arrangement of the ministry took 
place under the Apostles, acting with the com- 
mission, and by the inspiration, of the ascended 
Saviour. 

Note. — This addition was insisted on by Archbishop 
Laud. At his request, Bishop Hall published his " Episco- 
pacy by divine right asserted/' in which one of his proposi- 
tions implied that the Presbyterian form of polity might be 
useful where the Episcopate could not be had. The Primate 
took exception to this statement, as " an unnecessary and 
dangerous concession." As originally expressed, his first 



30 PBOTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTEIKE 



postulate stood thus : " That government which was of 
Apostolic institution cannot be denied to stand upon divine 
right." To this the Archbishop objects that though it is 
true it is too narrowly expressed ; " for Episcopacy is not to 
be so confined to Apostolical institution, as to bar it from a 
further ascent and from deriving it originally from our 
Saviour himself ; though perhaps the Apostles might su- 
perstruct something with respect to form and circum- 
stance." — McElhinney's Doctrine of the Church, p. 274. 
Bishop Hall did not adopt the Archbishop's view. 

2. Another doctrine added to tlie statement 
of our Ordinal is that which is technically called 
the doctrine of the Apostolic succession. It 
consists of two main positions, and it draws 
after it many consequences. We will first 
consider these two positions in this chapter, 
and afterward state some of the most prom- 
inent of those consequences in another chap- 
ter. 

1. The first main position of which the doc- 
trine of Apostolic succession consists is, that it 
is a fact that there has been an unbroken suc- 
cession of officers who succeeded the Apostles 
in their office ; that the Apostles laid their hands 
on presbyters to make them Bishops or Apos- 
tles, and these Bishops laid their hands on 
other presbyters, who thus became Bishops or 
Apostles ; so that there has been an unbroken, 
tactual, physical succession of Apostles. This 



AND CHUECH UNITY. 



31 



is what may be called the fact of the Apostolic 
succession. 

2. But this fact is considered to be important 
because it is also a doctrine that there must be 
such a succession for the preservation of the 
ministry. The ground is taken that, if this suc- 
cession should be broken, Christ would have no 
ministry on earth. In such case, there would be 
no one authorized to preach the Gospel and 
administer the Sacraments. Those who take 
this ground assume that there must have' been 
an unbroken tactual succession of Apostles or 
Bishops; because we have the promise that 
the gates of hell never shall prevail against 
the Church. An attempt has also been made, 
from history, to make out tables of unbroken 
succession, in different national Churches. 

"With these remarks upon what our Church 
has declared ; and of the additions which have 
been made to her definitions ; I proceed to 
show, very briefly, that she is well sustained 
in what she has announced ; and wise in omit- 
ting what some of her injudicious advocates 
have added to her statements. Again I must 
beg that it will be remembered that I have 
engaged to make a statement of the case rather 
than argue it in detail. 

We contend, then, that our Church is sus- 



32 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 



tained in her declaration that from the Apos- 
tles' times there have been three orders of 
ministers in Christ's Church, and the grounds 
on which it can be sustained are the follow- 
ing:— 

1. First, it can be shown that the Saviour com- 
missioned His Apostles to establish the Church 
and ministry; to set on foot His kingdom. He 
declared to them, "As the Father hath sent me, 
even so I send you." During the forty days 
which intervened between His Eesurrection 
and Ascension, " He gave commandment to the 
Apostles, whom He had chosen," and " spake to 
them of the things that pertained to the king* 
dom of God." From these and other passages, 
we learn that Christ commissioned His Apostles 
to establish His kingdom. 

2. It can be shown, in the second place, that 
in the execution of this commission, the Apos- 
tles distributed ministerial power to the three 
orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. The 
principal proofs of this fact are to be found in 
the history of Timothy and Titus ; and in the 
case of the seven Churches of Asia Minor. 
That argument has been often and ably handled 
by Episcopal writers ; and in our honest con- 
viction never overthrown. 

3. Then it can be shown that the Episcopacy 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



33 



established in the Apostles' time has continued 
in the Church of Christ from that time. The 
testimony of the primitive fathers to this sub- 
ject has been the subject of voluminous dis- 
cussion. The testimony of the learned Isaac 
Taylor is the more valuable on this point, be- 
cause, while he does not grant that episcopacy 
was established by the Apostles as a permanent 
arrangement, he admits that, as a matter of his- 
tory, there can be no doubt that it was well- 
nigh universally established. He tells us that 
the " orthodoxy of the great mass of Christians 
in those ages, in the first, second, and third cen- 
turies, and their episcopacy, are two prominent 
facts that meet us directly on almost every page 
of the extant remains of these times." 

By these lines of proof, it can be shown that 
our Church speaks advisedly, when she declares 
that from the Apostles 5 times there have been 
these three orders of ministers in Christ's Church. 

The other two assertions of the preface to the 
Ordinal, that no man should be admitted to the 
ministry but by imposition of hands and prayer ; 
and that none should be held to be a lawful 
minister in the Church of England and our own, 
without Episcopal ordination, need no vindica- 
tion. If Episcopacy be held by the Church to 
have been established by the Apostles, and to 
3 



34 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

have been conferred by the laying on of hands ; 
of course it became her to admit none to her 
ministry but those who are thus ordained. But 
observe that the preface declares that no one 
who is not thus ordained shall be held to be 
a lawful minister in this Church. It does not 
say that none is a lawful minister in Christ's 
Church unless he receive Episcopal ordination ; 
but only that he is not a lawful minister in this 
Church. As the Article on the universal Church 
has not stated that succession, or the three 
orders, are necessary to the various Churches 
of the world to constitute them portions of 
the Church Catholic, it cannot be truly said 
that onr Church has determined that there 
can be no ministry or Church unless it be 
Episcopally constituted. If any one among us, 
therefore, chooses to say, " This body of pro- 
fessed Christians is not a part of Christ's 
Church, because it has not true doctrine ; " 
and if another chooses to say, " This body of 
professed Christians is not a part of the Church 
of Christ, because it has not Bishops and the 
Apostolic succession," he must give it as his 
private opinion. He has no right to say that 
it is the doctrine of the Church. The Church 
has not said it. In no authorized or authorita- 
tive document of the Church, can there be found 



AKD CHURCH UOTTY. 



35 



such a decision with regard to Christian com- 
munities calling themselves Churches. 

And now, having indicated the grounds on 
which we think our Church is sustained in what 
she has advanced, let us show why we believe 
her to have omitted certain other doctrines, and 
why we believe her to be wise in such omis- 
sion. 

1. We find no assertion in our standards to 
the effect that Christ himself, during His life and 
ministry, either before or after His ascension, 
established the three permanent orders of the 
ministry ; and that the Apostles were succeeded 
in their office by the Bishops. There is no such 
declaration. " From the Apostles' times," — not 
" during, or from Christ's time," — is the language 
of our Ordinal. And to this all the services of 
the Church agree. Read the services for the 
consecration of Bishops, and the ordination of 
Priests and Deacons ; read the Apology of 
Bishop Jewel, which is an authorized book in 
the English Church; read the Homilies, and 
I venture to say that you will find no such propo- 
sition. 

2. Again, the fact of an unbroken succession 
of Bishops is nowhere asserted in our standards. 
"From the Apostles' times," it is declared 
there have been three orders in the Church, but 



36 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

it is not declared that, in succession, without 
any break in the chain, from the Apostles' time, 
Bishop has transmitted to Bishop the office 
which he in turn has transmitted through an- 
other, down to the present time. This is neither 
asserted nor denied. I do not assert or deny it. 
I do not believe that it is capable of proof or dis- 
proof. As an historical question, it is too ob- 
scure to be definitely and satisfactorily settled. 

3. Nor is the doctrine of Apostolic succession 
to be found in our standards. I mean, of course, 
that doctrine to which the term is technically 
applied. That we have a ministry of Bishops, 
Priests, and Deacons, which has reached us in 
succession from the Apostles, and was by them 
established, is indeed true. If we choose, we 
may call this the Apostolic succession. But 
this is not the doctrine which some mean by the 
phrase " Apostolic succession." In that doc- 
trine there is one important particular to which 
your attention will be now directed. 

The particular to which I allude is the claim 
that the Bishops are " successors to the office 
of the Apostles." It has been so constantly and 
confidently stated, by friends and foes, that it 
is the doctrine of the Episcopal Church that 
Bishops have succeeded to the office of the Apos- 
tles, that it may excite some surprise to hear it 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



37 



denied. You will find the fact laid down, I am 
aware, in some books, written by Episcopalians, 
but you will not, I think, find a syllable in proof 
of the position in the Prayer Book. There is 
no authority for it in the Book of Common 
Prayer ; and, I am persuaded, none in the word 
of God. After a full examination of the subject, 
I rest with great confidence in the persuasion 
that the founders of our Church claimed no 
more than this — that the Apostles distributed 
the power of the ministry into three orders, 
and assigned to the Bishops the first place of 
authority and the exclusive power of ordination ; 
but that they neither had, nor could have, suc- 
cessors to their Apostolic office. "We will indi- 
cate a few heads of argument which might be 
developed upon this subject. 

1. "We remark that neither in the preface to 
the Ordinal, nor in any of the ordination services, 
neither explicitly nor by implication, are Bishops 
called Apostles. 

2. We remark that only once is the term 
" ministers of Apostolic succession " used in the 
Book of Common Prayer. In that instance, so 
far from being applied to Bishops as the suc- 
cessors of the Apostles in their office, it is ap- 
plied to Presbyters, who are called ministers of 
Apostolic succession ; and to them — Presbyters 



38 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 



— it is that the last words of Christ to his Apos- 
tles, in which he promises to be present with 
them to the end of the world,* are appropriated. 
The words occur in a Collect for the Office of 
Institution. 

3. "We remark that the Apostles could have 
no successors to their office because the office 
was peculiar, and in its nature temporary, as 
the first lawgivers and founders of the Christian 
Church ; and as the designated witnesses of 
our Saviour's life, death, and resurrection. 
From the nature of the office, it could have no 
successors. 

4. It is contended that the Bishops succeeded 
to that which was the distinguishing character- 
istic of the Apostolate, — the power of chief gov- 
ernment in the Church, and the power of ordi- 
nation, — although they did not inherit.their mi- 
raculous power, or their personal endowments. 
To this statement we reply, that it must be 
shown that the Apostles were Apostles by virtue 
of their power of chief government and ordina- 
tion in the Church ; that it was these powers 
that constituted them Apostles. But it will be 
found that what constituted them Apostles was 
the fact that they were chosen directly by our 
Lord, that they were designated as the eye-wit- 



* Matt, xxviii. 18, 19. 



AKD CHURCH UNITY. 



39 



nesses of his resurrection, that they were com- 
missioned to organize the ministry, and lay the 
foundation of the Christian Church. In these 
things consisted the essence of the Apostleship, 
and in these they could have no successors. 

5. I remark that St. Paul did not treat and 
address Timothy and Titus as if they were suc- 
cessors to him in his office ; as if they were co- 
equal Apostles ; but, on the contrary, he ad- 
dresses them much in the same way that he 
does the Presbyters.* 

6. "We remark that the Bishops are not called 
Apostles. On this point, I quote briefly from 
Bishop Hall. He says, " these great ambassa- 
dors of Christ sustain more persons than one. 
They were Christ's Presbyters, Bishops, Apos- 
tles." t 

If they were Apostles, over and above being 
Bishops, then Bishops and Apostles were not 
the same. Bishops succeeded the Apostles as 
they were Bishops, not as they were Apostles. 
" I do also acknowledge," says Archbishop 
Bramhall, "that Episcopacy was contained in 
the Apostolic office, as the three-cornered thing 
is contained in that which has four corners, and 

* 1 Tim. iii. 14, 15 ; iv. 11-16 ; v. 21-23; vi. 13, 14; 2 
Tim. ii: iii. 14, 17; iv. 1-9. 
f Bishop Hall on Episcopacy. 



40 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 



that the distinction was made by the Apostles 
with the approbation of Christ." * That is, it 
was less large. It was the part, and not the 
whole. The Bishop, therefore, cannot be the 
Apostle, or the successor to his office of Apostle. 

The learned Bishop Barrow is clear and em- 
phatic on this point. " If it be objected," says 
he, " that the Fathers commonly do call Bishops 
successors of the Apostles, to assail that objec- 
tion, we may consider, that whereas the Apos- 
tolic office virtually did contain the functions of 
teaching and ruling God's people; the which 
for preservation of Christian doctrine, and edi- 
fication of the Church were requisite to be con- 
tinued perpetually in ordinary standing offices, 
these indeed were derived from the Apostles, but 
not properly in the way of succession, as by 
univocal propagation, but by ordination, im- 
parting all the power needful for such offices ; 
which therefore were exercised by persons dur- 
ing the Apostles' lives, concurrently, or in sub- 
ordination to them ; even as a dictator at Rome 
might create inferior magistrates, who derived 
from him, but not as his successors ; for as Bel- 
larmine himself telleth us 4 there can be no 
proper succession but in respect of one pre- 



* Archbishop Bramhall's Works, folio, p. 164. 



AND CHUKCH UNITY. 



41 



ceding; but Apostles and Bishops were to- 
gether in the Church.' 

" The Fathers therefore, in a large sense call 
all Bishops successors of the Apostles ; not 
meaning that any one of them did succeed unto 
the whole Apostolic office ; but that each did 
receive power from some one (immediately or 
mediately), whom some Apostle did constitute 
Bishop, vesting him with authority to feed the 
particular flock committed to him, in way of or- 
dinary charge." * 

* Bakkow's Treatise on the Pope's Supremacy, page 125. 
The same idea is repeated, in various forms, in the context. 
This office of Apostle, he declares/ ' was not designed to con- 
tinue by derivation ; for it containeth in it divers things 
which apparently were not communicated, and which no 
man without gross imposture and hypocrisy could chal- 
lenge to himself." (P. 123.) " Wherefore, St. Peter, who 
had no other office mentioned in the Scripture, or known to 
antiquity, besides that of an Apostle, could not have, prop- 
erly and adequately, any successor to his office." (P. 124.) 
" Neither did the Apostles pretend to communicate it; [viz: 
the Apostolic office;] they did indeed appoint standing pas- 
tors and teachers in each Church; they did assume fellow- 
laborers or assistants in the work of preaching and govern- 
ance; but they did not constitute Apostles equal to them- 
selves in authority, privileges, and gifts." " Who knoweth 
not," says St. Austin, " that principate of Apostleship, to be 
preferred before any Episcopacy." "The Bishops," saith 
Bellarmine," have no part of the true Apostolic authority." 
See pp. 127, 128. 



42 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

In what lofty terms this claim that Bishops 
are Apostles is urged in our day may be seen in 
the following extract of a " Tract for the Times," 
on Apostolic succession : " Apostles they (i. e. 
Bishops) were and continue to be. And every 
living Bishop may say with St. Paul, 6 1 am an 
Apostle not from man, neither through man, (?) 
but through Jesus Christ.' But they are some- 
thing more than Apostles ; a Bishop is also an 
angel of the Church ; he is sent as a Heavenly 
messenger, shining with Heavenly light and 
power, which he dispenses and exercises as the 
Church's overseer." 

And now, before concluding this chapter with 
some observations on the doctrines which I 
have stated to have been added to those pro- 
claimed in our standards, it may be well to re- 
view the ground which I have so rapidly trav- 
ersed, and mark the two prominent points which 
I have stated rather than defended ; but which 
may be very confidently maintained. 

1. I have shown that while our Church has 
stated, in general terms, what conditions are 
necessary to constitute Christian societies true 
Churches, she has not so defined what shall be 
considered a fulfillment of those conditions for 
other churches, as to enable us to go through 
Christendom and dogmatically determine which 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



43 



so-called churches are true and which are 
false. 

2. I have shown that while our Church has 
announced that, from the Apostles' time, there 
have been the three orders of Bishops, Priests, 
and Deacons in the Church, she has not an- 
nounced that this polity was established by 
Christ himself, and existed during his ministry 
on earth ; nor has she called Bishops the suc- 
cessors of the Apostles, in their Apostolic office. 

I have been careful to maintain and express 
this distinction, because I am persuaded that 
much of the alarming error of the day has origi- 
nated in, and has been sustained by, the habit 
of calling and considering Bishops to be Apos- 
tles, successors to the office of the Apostles, 
standing in the place of the Apostles, and in- 
heriting all their powers except those which are 
personal and miraculous. In this fact is to be 
found the. origin and reason for extravagant 
claims of exclusive governmental and priestly 
power and grace in Bishops. 

Some of the language of the modern advo- 
cates of the Apostleship of Bishops seems to 
me little less than blasphemous. Let me bring 
some of it to your notice. I quote one sentence 
from a Bishop of our own Church, and others 
from publications highly recommended by some 



44 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

of our Bishops, and many of our clergy — the 
" Tracts for the Times." " Her Bishops," says 
a Bishop of our own Church, " are Apostles, 
each in his own proper sphere, sent out to 
feed the Church of God." * This is but a 
reverberation of lofty claims sounded on the 
other side of the Atlantic. " Exalt our holy 
fathers, the Bishops, as the representatives of 
the Apostles." f He (i. e. the Bishop) is Christ's 
minister — stands in the place of the Apostles — 
is the shepherd of our souls while Christ is 
away." % " Our Bishops, even at this distance 
of time, stand before the flock as the authorized 
successors of the Apostles ; and as armed with 
their power to confer spiritual gifts in the 
Church, and in cases of necessity to wield their 
awful weapon of rejection from the fold of 
Christ." § " They (%. e. the Apostles) did not 
leave the world without appointing persons to 
take their place ; and these persons (Bishops) 
represent them ; and may be considered in ref- 
erence to us as if they were Apostles." || " This 
explains how the Apostles may still be said to 

* Bishop Doane's Missionary Bishop, p. 22. 
f "Tracts for the Times," No. 1, p. 1. 
t " " " " No. 2, p. 10. 
§ " " " u No. 5. 
I " " " " No. 10, p. 53. 



kXD CHURCH UNITY. 



45 



be among us. They stand in the place of the 

Apostles, AND WHATEVER WE OUGHT TO DO HAD WE 
LIVED WHEN THE APOSTLES WERE STILL ALIVE, 
THE SAME OUGHT WE TO DO FOR THE BlSHOPS."* 

" The Bishop rules the whole Church below as 
Christ rules it above." f 

These are certainly arrogant assumptions of 
spiritual and priestly power. To say of a 
Bishop, that " he is the shepherd of my soul 
while Christ is away ; " " that he is armed with 
the power of an Apostle to confer spiritual 
gifts ; " " that he is an Apostle ; " " that he rules 
the Church below as Christ rules it above/ 5 i. e. 
absolutely; "that I should do just that for him 
which I ought to have done to Apostles, had I 
lived in their time " — alas ! that we should live 
to hear these echoes of Bomish arrogance and 
despotism reverberating in the courts of our 
reformed, moderate, free, Protestant commun- 
ion ! 

When we remember that for many years, 
language like this which I have quoted has been 
sounding in our ears, and in the ears of our 
Bishops ; when they and we have been told, 
with every exaggerated expression of reverence 



* "Tracts for the Times," No. 10, p. 54. 
f " " " " No. 10, p. 54. 



46 PROTESTAKT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

for their authority, that they were Apostles; 
that they stood in the place of the Apostles ; that 
they inherited their full, inherent, irresponsible, 
governmental and priestly power ; when the at- 
tempt to restrain and moderate these lofty pre- 
tensions has been met with the denunciation of 
those who made the attempt, as " no Church- 
men," and " low Churchmen," and " Presbyter- 
ians," it would not appear to you surprising if 
some of our Bishops should have begun to act 
as if they believed themselves to be Apostles, 
and to assume the language and port of men 
invested with the plenitude of Apostolic power. 
But the truth is, such claims are very seldom 
made by themselves. That noble band of the 
devoted Bishops of our Church — as consecrated 
and earnest men, and as little inclined to lord it 
over God's heritage, I believe, as the world ever 
saw — are, for the most part, too absorbed in 
their great work to urge these high claims for 
themselves, or to desire that they should be 
urged in their behalf by others. 

For the office of Bishop, as the institution of 
the Apostles, acting by the commission and un- 
der the inspiration of the Saviour, I entertain a 
profound and loyal reverence and affection, 
which arises no less from the settled convictions 
of my understanding than from the sacred asso- 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



47 



ciations of all my life. But for these extrava- 
gant and ungrounded claims — for these ad- 
ditions to the doctrines of our standards — I 
have no feeling of respect, but rather a feeling 
of profound indignation and sorrow ; indignation 
because they dishonor Christ and his chosen 
twelve ; sorrow because they retard the progress 
and diminish the influence of our holy, vener- 
able, beautiful, and Apostolic Church. If these 
claims are well founded,, then it becomes us to 
review and repent us of our past history as a 
Church. Then we have awfully erred in sub- 
jecting these Apostles of Christ to rules and 
limitations. Then they have, indeed, full and 
unrestricted power to govern the Church. 
Then they are to govern it below, even as 
Christ governs it above. Then they may gratu- 
itously condescend to be counseled ; but they 
ought not to allow themselves to be directed. 
Then conventions are an insult, and consti- 
tutions and canons an impertinence. Then the 
Church should go to them, on her knees, and 
give back to them all her immunities and laws, 
and beg them, in the plenitude of their Apos- 
tolic power, to give her, from time to time, such 
regulations as she may need. No less than this 
should be done, if we admit the Apostleship of 
Bishops. No less than what is equivalent to 



48 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTEINE. 

this appears to be done by many, who magnify 
beyond all bounds the spiritual prerogatives of 
a living Apostolate. It may be an interesting 
employment for sentimental Deacons, and ro- 
mantic students, and aesthetic Rectors, enam- 
ored of the dramatic pomps and shows of the 
mediaeval age, to twine around the crook of 
Episcopacy these gay garlands and streamers 
of authority, and when the staff, thus adorned, 
is lifted over their heads, they may admire the 
flutter of the ribbons and the wreaths as pict- 
uresque and pretty. But let them read the 
history of nations and of the Church, and learn 
that undue power granted by gratitude and af- 
fection, no less than that which is usurped, 
has been exercised without limit and without 
mercy. 



H. 

EPISCOPACY 

OF 

APOSTOLIC APPOINTMENT. 



Episcopacy not admitted to have been a temporary and 
merely expedient institution. — The system of Archbishop 
Whately. — His arguments from "Omissions" and " gen- 
eral principles " examined and rejected. — Scriptural argu- 
ment for Episcopacy.— A. question of offices and not of 
names. — The appointment and duties of Deacons. — The 
order and functions of Presbyters. — The appointment of 
Bishops. — Their power of ordination and chief govern- 
ment. — Reasons for considering the institution as intended 
to be permanent. — Reasons for admitting that other Chris- 
tian Societies may be true Churches without Episcopacy. 



CHAPTEE n. 



In my first chapter I explained the XlXth 
Article of the Church, and the Preface to the 
Ordination Services. We saw that pure preach- 
ing of the word and right administration of the 
Sacraments were designated as marks of the 
visible Church Catholic of Christ; and that the 
fact was stated that from the Apostles' time 
there had been three orders of ministers in 
Christ's Church, which were retained and rev- 
erently esteemed in the Church of England and 
in our own Church. 

My purpose, in the present chapter, is to 
prove that Episcopacy was established by the 
Apostles, and is to be retained as a divinely ap- 
pointed institution, for whose designed or ad- 
mitted cessation or change there is no authority 
from the word of God, or from any change of 
the circumstances under which it was organized 
at the first. 

But while I shall be occupied in proving 
Episcopacy Apostolic and perpetual in its obli- 
gation, I shall not feel that I am in the least de- 
gree in .conflict with the principle intimated in 



52 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTKISTE 



my last, and to be developed in my next chapter, 
that it is not essential to the existence of the 
Church, the ministry, and the Sacraments. 

But let it be observed that I do not make the 
admission that churches and Sacraments may 
exist without the Episcopacy, on the ground that 
it was, in itself, a mere temporary and expedient 
institution ; or on the ground that Christ has 
left ecclesiastical government in the same posi- 
tion with civil government, so that various forms 
of Church discipline may be equally lawful, pro- 
vided that they all respect certain principles 
laid down in the word of God. This is the sys- 
tem of Archbishop Whately, from which I dis- 
sent, and which it is my purpose, at this time, 
briefly to examine. 

This system is presented by Archbishop 
Whately with consummate skill. It has never 
found much favor in our communion. It has 
floated over the shallows of the Church mind, 
rather than anchored itself in its deep places. 
It is that which non-Episcopalians are anxious 
we should take, and which they are discontented 
with us that we decline. Yet it has its advo- 
cates in the Church ; and the extreme of exclu- 
siveness has tended to revive and strengthen 
it. Dr. "Whately, in his " Kingdom of Christ," has 
presented this system under every advantage 



AND CHUECH UNITY. 



53 



which can be imparted to it by one of the clear- 
est and deepest intellects of the age. Unable,' 
as I am, to adopt the system, I am at the same 
time impressed with the ingenuity and ability, 
never surpassed on this subject, with which his 
proposition is maintained. It is a compliment to 
him, to say that his lucidness of statement and 
of argument enables us the better to detect his 
fallacies. Through the opacity of a confused 
mind, we may not be able to see even the truth 
which it holds and advocates ; while through 
the transparent medium of a clear one, we may 
detect the minutest error which it retains. 
Under shallow waters which are riled and dark, 
we cannot see even the gleaming gold and gems, 
while through those deep waters which are still 
and clear, we may discern even worthless peb- 
bles and unsightly weeds. 

The first important argument of Archbishop 
Whately on this subject is derived from the 
omissions of the word of God ; and is briefly and 
clearly stated in the following passage : — 

" And among the important facts which we 
can collect and fully ascertain from the sacred 
historians, scanty, and irregular, and imperfect 
as are their records of particulars, one of the 
most important is that very scantiness and in- 
completeness in the detail, that absence of any 



54 PKOTESTASTT EPISCOPAL DOCTKIKE 

full and systematic description of the formation 
and regulation of Christian communities that 
has just been noticed. We may plainly infer 
from this very circumstance, the design of the 
Holy Spirit, that these details, concerning which 
no precise directions, accompanied by strict in- 
junctions, are to be found in Scripture, were- 
meant to be left to the regulation of each 
Church in each age and country." * 

Should we grant the justice of this argument, 
we may yet on good grounds deny that Episco- 
pacy, or the constitution of the Christian minis- 
try, can properly be included among those " cir- 
cumstantial details," " which," in the language 
of Archbishop Whately, " the Apostles and their 
followers were, during the age of inspiration, 
supernaturally withheld from recording, and 
which were not intended by Divine Providence, 
to be absolutely binding on all Churches in 
every age and country, but were meant to be 
left to the discretion of every particular 
Church." t 

We contend that the facts found on the page 
of Scripture do not admit the application of 
this argument from omission to the case of the 



* Kingdom of Christ, p. 80. 
t " Si p. 88. 



AKD CHURCH UXTTY. 



55 



constitution of the Christian ministry. Dr. 
"Whately has grouped together a number of 
subjects, concerning some of which there is 
nothing, some something, and others much writ- 
ten, and declared of all, that the absence of 
circumstantial details in reference to these sub- 
jects is proof that a divine restraint was laid 
upon the minds of the Apostles, and that they 
were all to be left to the discretion of the 
Churches of every age and clime. Now it may 
at once be granted that, in reference to subjects 
upon which nothing is said, nothing is obligatory. 
"We readily grant that some regulations, casually 
and historically mentioned, are not of binding 
and perpetual force. But in reference to those 
subjects on which much is said, which appear 
to be of universal application, and may be uni- 
versally obligatory, which are not mentioned in- 
cidentally and historically only, but frequently, 
and in the way of regulation and direction, we 
may be permitted to hesitate, and doubt, and 
question. "We find, indeed, in Scripture, noth- 
ing of catechisms and creeds. Doubtless, then, 
Churches may construct them for themselves. 
We find little or nothing in reference to canons 
and forms of prayer. We are left, then, at lib- 
erty to frame them for ourselves. Not so is it 
on the subject of the ministry. Much is writ- 



56 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

ten concerning it. Historical details as to its 
form — regulations for its transmission, directions 
and warnings as to the spirit and mode in which 
it should be fulfilled — all these are found on the 
pages of the New Testament. Now when this 
question of the ministry is found in such a dif- 
ferent aspect on the pages of the New Testa- 
ment from those others which are enumerated 
with it, is it quite fair to huddle these minor 
points arotmd this greater one ; and hiding the 
greater one behind the less, or the many, speak 
of creeds, and catechisms, and canons, and 
forms of prayer, and psalmody, and the form of 
the ministry, as constituting a group of insignifi- 
cant and changeable modes and forms, which 
are ever ready to adapt themselves to unchange- 
able essences and things ? The argument which 
considers the constitution of the Christian min- 
istry as a thing of no more importance than 
psalmody, and creeds, and catechisms, is in- 
conclusive, because it corresponds neither with 
reason nor with Scriptural representations of 
the fact. 

But we object to the whole argument of Dr. 
Whately on other grounds. If we adopt the 
principle which he suggests, that nothing is to 
be perpetual but what is " precisely directed 
and strictly enjoined," we shall be stripped of 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



57 



almost all external institutions. The^demand 
for such directions and injunctions proceeds 
from a forgetfulness of the fact, which Dr. 
Whately himself elsewhere mentions — that the 
Scriptures did not originate the Church. The 
Church of God was existing at the time of our 
Saviour's advent. The officers of the Church 
were set in it by Christ or his Apostles, under 
His inspiration and authority. It was not then to 
originate but to sustain the truth and the Church 
of God, that the Apostles, by the inspiration of 
the Holy Ghost, left the precious legacy of the 
word. The form, then, in which the perpetuity 
of institutions would be proclaimed in the word 
of God would be determined by the peculiar 
circumstances under which it was written. We 
find, then, a reason and a necessity in the very 
office of the "Word of God, and in its relation to 
the truth and the Church, for the adoption of 
the principle that whatever was practiced by 
Christ and His Apostles, which, from the nature 
and necessity of the case, or from the language 
employed, implied that it was to be perpetual, 
is to be retained and observed as of divine insti- 
tution. Such we believe to be the fact with re 
gard to Episcopacy. 

And be it observed that Dr. Whately himself 
has explicitly admitted that the fundamental 



58" PKOTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

doctrines and great moral principles of the Gos- 
pel are taught in the New Testament " incident- 
ally, irregularly, and by oblique allusions." His 
language on this point is very emphatic. "The 
fundamental doctrines and great principles of 
the Gospel are taught, for wise reasons, no 
doubt, and which, I think, we may in part per- 
ceive, not in Creeds or other regular formula- 
ries, but incidentally, irregularly, and often by 
oblique allusions — less striking, indeed, at first 
sight, than distinct enunciations and enactments, 
but often the more decisive and satisfactory 
from that very circumstance ; because the 
Apostles frequently allude to some truth as not 
only essential but indisputably admitted and 
familiarly, known to be essential by those they 
were addressing." This admission of Dr. Whately 
is destructive of his argument against the 
fixed form of the Christian ministry. The fun- 
damental doctrines of the Gospel are, in Dr. 
Whately's estimation and our own, more impor- 
tant than the forms of Church organization. If 
" oblique allusions," if " incidental and irregular 
statements " are a sufficient basis for the funda- 
mental doctrines of the Gospel, then much more • 
are they sufficient for the establishment of the 
institutions of the Gospel. If the greater truths 
are thus proclaimed, then we can have no diffi- 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



59 



culty in receiving those of less moment, which 
are set forth in a similar manner. There is an 
absence, indeed, as Dr. W. remarks, of a full 
and systematic description of doctrine ; but so, 
also, is there an absence of a full and system- 
atic system of discipline. Yet, in the absence 
of this full statement, we do find the fundamental 
doctrines, and so also do we find the visible 
institutions which are designed by the Spirit 
of God to be everywhere and always proclaimed 
and established. We claim to find the institu- 
tion of Episcopacy in the same way that we 
find the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel. 

But the argument on which Dr. Whately most 
relies is grounded upon the idea that, while 
Scripture furnishes no one pattern or form for 
the Christian ministry, it lays down general 
principles which are applicable to various forms, 
and whfch should be sacredly maintained. While 
" he declares these principles are clearly recog- 
nized and strongly inculcated, which Christian 
communities and individual members of them 
are to keep in mind and act upon with a view to 
the great objects for which these communities 
are established, the precise modes in which 
these objects are in each case to be promoted 
are left — one can hardly doubt are studiously 
left — undefined." 



60 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

What are those principles which are clearly 
recognized and strongly inculcated, which Chris- 
tian communities are to keep in mind and act 
upon ? They are stated by Dr. Whately to be 
such as are involved in earnest exhortations to 
avoid confusion in their public worship ; to " do 
all things decently and in order ; " to " let all 
things be done to edifying ; " " not to neglect 
the assembling of themselves together " for 
united worship; to "reverence" and "obey" 
them who "bear rule ; " and to " censure such 
as walk disorderly " and " cause divisions." 
These, and such like, are the principles which 
it is said Christian communities should bear in 
mind and observe. 

"We remark, in the first place, that these are 
not proclaimed in Scripture as the principles 
which Christians should adopt in setting on 
foot a Christian community or Church. It is 
not proclaimed in Scripture that this is the ob- 
ject and intent of these exhortations and direc- 
tions. They are found, indeed, in the Word of 
God, but the assertion that they are there for 
that object is without any foundation. Dr. 
Whately assumes, but does not prove, that they 
are written for the purpose to which he applies 
them. 

Now, it is obvious to remark that all these 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



61 



exhortations, taken just as they stand, without 
reference to their respective contexts, are as ap- 
plicable as rules and directions for communities 
already established as they are for principles 
on which they should be established. And 
when we come to examine the circumstances 
under which they were first employed, we find, 
as a matter of fact, that they were directed 
either to the heads or rulers of organized Chris- 
tian communities, or to those communities 
themselves. The argument does not strike us 
as worthy of a master of logic. Take a case 
that would be precisely parallel. We have 
pastoral letters from our House of Bishops, ad- 
dressed to all the Churches throughout the land. 
They are full of godly admonitions to us, as 
Churches and as individuals, to do all things 
peaceably and in order, to let every thing be 
done to edifying, and not to neglect the assem- 
bliDg of ourselves together for public prayer 
and praise. Now suppose there was no allusion 
or hint throughout these pastoral letters to our 
peculiar organization, would it be a fair use of 
these general exhortations to say that it was 
evident from them that the writers intended to 
set forth principles on which Churches should be 
established, but that they themselves held to 
no one form of organization ? The conclusion 



62 PKOTESTAOT EPISCOPAL DOCTKl^E 

would be as well warranted as is that which. Dr. 
Whately draws from the general exhortations of 
the Word of God. 

It is evident, then, at the first glance at the 
subject, that these exhortations are not neces- 
sarily principles in consistency with which Chris- 
tian communities in various forms may be estab- 
lished — that there is no proof adduced that 
they were set forth with that design— and that in 
fact they were addressed to Christian Churches 
already constituted. 

What is still more to the purpose is, that 
many of the directions of the Scripture on this 
subject are applicable only to that precise mode 
of ministerial organization in which there are 
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, with various of- 
fices and powers. Such are to be found in the 
Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, and 
in other parts of the New Testament. We refer 
to this fact to show how careless and imperfect 
is the reasoning of Dr. Whately. What is the 
course which he pursues ? He selects some gen- 
eral exhortations from the Epistles, and refers 
in a general way to the Epistles from which they 
are selected, and then avers that, in short, while 
principles are clearly recognized, precise modes 
of organization are left undefined. But when 
we examine these very directions which he has 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 63 



selected, we find that they are not all equally 
applicable to various forms of Church organiza- 
tion ; but that some of them are consistent only 
with such form or forms as include diversity in 
order and in office. In stating that the general 
principle is announced that due reverence and 
obedience are demanded of those who bear rule, 
reference is made in this way — " See Hebrews 
and Timothy." And when we do see Hebrews 
and Timothy, we find not only these general ex- 
hortations, but also specific injunctions concern- 
ing the rule of Presbyters and Bishops. The 
fact assumed, then, is not proved. We have 
something more than general principles. We 
have specific directions given to certain desig- 
nated officers. 

Having dismissed this theory more briefly 
than I could have desired, I now direct atten- 
tion to the Scriptural argument for the divine 
institution of the Episcopal, or three-fold, form 
of the Christian ministry. 

It is necessary to premise the proof of this • 
position with the remark that the names now 
distinctly attached to the three offices of the 
ministry were not, in the times of the Apostles, 
so unalterably appropriated to them as they are 
now. The offices themselves we claim to find. 
The names attached to those offices are often 



64 PKOTESTAKT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 



used interchangeably and almost promiscuously. 
On this subject we subjoin the observations of 
Archdeacon Manning : * 

" Certainly, if the interchange of names be at 
all a refutative argument, then there did not 
exist, as a distinct office, Deacon, Presbyter, 
Bishop, or Apostle. They who contend that 
the names are thus common and indiscriminate 
must abide the full issue of their principle. The 
issue would not be doubtful, though very ad- 
verse to their purpose in adopting it. Now, it 
is not to be denied that the seeming laxity with 
which these names are used in the Apostolic 
writings presents, at first sight, no small diffi- 
culty. But it is equally certain that to make 
the difficulty a thousand fold greater is to at- 
tempt a verbal proof from the several names, 
without investigating the facts of the case. We 
should not only be committing ourselves to a 
mistaken view of the matter from which the 
proof is to be derived, but also to a false prin- 
« ciple on which the investigation is to be con- 
ducted." " To contend about the names of Bish- 
ops or Presbyters, is nothing more than walking 
upon air ; and so to propound the dispute that 
there never can be an end of disputing ;" t the 

* Unity of the Church, p. 101. 

t Bishop Beveridge in Cod. Com. etc. Lib. 2, chap. xi. 13. 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



65 



real question being whether the Apostles, before 
they departed this life, committed the ultimate 
power of ruling the Church and ordaining others 
to any one person in each Church, or to many, 
that is, according to the modern formula, whether 
to a Bishop or to a body of Presbyters. When 
we have come to a conclusion on this point, we 
shall find that the names in the Apostolic writ- 
ings will, for the most part, fall into their proper 
places. But whether or no we succeed in ad- 
justing the use of the several titles, the facts of 
history will prove that the offices were distinct ; 
and on this alone we rest. 

On this point, no one has written more clearly 
and conclusively than the author of " Episco- 
pacy Tested by Scripture." We quote his ob- 
servations : 

"Irregularity in titles and designations is of 
so frequent occurrence, yet occasions so little 
actual confusion, that it ought not to be viewed 
as a real difficulty in the case before us. Ex- 
amples to this effect crowd upon us. The orig- 
inal meaning of 6 emperor ' (imperator) was 
only a general, but it was afterwards appropri- 
ated to the monarch ; and the original meaning 
of c Bishop ' was only a Presbyter, but the name 
passed from that middle grade to the high- 
est. There are, again, the 'president' of the 



66 PKOTESTAKT EPISCOPAL DOCTKI^E 

United States, 'presidents' of colleges, and ' presi- 
dents ' of societies; there are the ' governor' of 
a commonwealth, c governors' of hospitals, and 
the ' governor ' of a jail ; there are ' ministers ' 
of state and ' ministers ' of religion ; there are 
' provosts ' of colleges and c provosts-marshal ; ' 
there are ' elders ' (senators) in a legislature, 
' elders ' (aldermen) in a city government, c el- 
ders ' (Presbyters) in the Church, and lay 
* elders' in some denominations; there were 
' consuls ' in Rome and in France who were 
supreme civil magistrates, and there are 6 con- 
suls ' who are mere commercial agents; there 
are ' captains ' with a certain rank in the army 
or militia, ' captains ' with much higher rank in 
the navy, and ' captains' with no legal rank. 
Here, one would say, is an almost unlimited 
confusion of names or designations; yet this 
confusion is but apparent ; there is no real or 
practical difficulty in the use of them; custom 
renders it all easy and clear. So a little re- 
flection and practice will enable any of our 
readers to look in Scripture for the several 
sacred offices, independently of the names there 
or elsewhere given them. Let us say, in anal- 
ogy with some of the above examples, that 
there are Bishops of parishes and Bishops of 
dioceses ; and when we find in the New Testa- 



AND CHUECH UNITY. 



67 



ment the name - Bishop/ we must regard it as 
meaning the Bishop of a parish or a Presbyter ; 
but the Bishop of a diocese, or the highest grade 
of the ministry, we must there seek, not under 
that name, and independently of any name at 
all. We are inquiring for the thing, the fact, 
an order higher than Presbyters : the name is 
not worth a line of controversy." 

L That the Apostles ordained Deacons, and 
constituted them an order in the ministry, with 
certain definite functions, few words will suffice 
to prove. This fact will the less require to be 
dwelt upon, as it is scarcely ever doubted or 
denied. 

The record of the appointment and ordina- 
tion of Deacons is found in the sixth chapter of 
the Acts of the Apostles. The occasion of their 
appointment was " a murmuring of the Grecians 
against the Hebrews, because their widows 
were neglected in the daily ministration." * The 
Apostles, thinking " it was not reason " that 
they " should leave the word of God, and serve 
tables," desired the Disciples "to look out 
seven men of honest report, full of the Holy 
Ghost and of wisdom," whom " they," that is, 
the Apostles, " might appoint over this busi- 
ness." t Here we see that the designation of 



* Acts vi. 1. 



t Ver. 3. 



68 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

the Deacons was with the people ; and the ap- 
pointment of them was made by the Apostles. 
Accordingly, seven men were chosen, whom 
" they set before the Apostles, and when they 
had prayed, they laid their hands upon them." 
Such was the occasion of the appointment and 
ordination of Deacons. 

That the office was continued in the Church 
appears from the Epistles of St. Paul. He 
salutes the Saints in Christ Jesus who are at 
Philippi, with the " Bishops and Deacons." * In 
the Epistle to Timothy, St. Paul exhorts them 
as an existing order of officers in the Church of 
God, urging them to fidelity to their office, on 
the ground and with the encouragement that 
they who have used the office of a Deacon well 
purchase to themselves a good degree, and great 
boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus, t 

The duties of the Diaconate are not so clear- 
ly stated as their appointment. That they 
were not limited to the one work which formed 
the occasion of their appointment seems evi- 
dent from the fact that Philip the Deacon both 
preached and baptized, and that St. Stephen 
laid down his life in testimony of the truth as 
it is in Jesus, t In the absence of a full enu- 
meration of the functions of the Diaconate, our 



* Phil. i. 1. 



f 1 Tim. iii. 13. 



:f Acts vii. and viii. 



AND CHURCH UNITY 



69 



Church has done wisely in acting upon the let- 
ter of their appointment so far as its duties are 
prescribed ; and in adhering to its spirit, so far 
as its action is recorded ; and in following the 
example of the primitive Church in designating 
the sphere of its operations. She has declared 
that 4 'it appertaineth to the office of a Deacon 
to assist the Priest at Communion and Divine 
service ; to read the Scriptures and Homilies 
in the Church ; to instruct the youth in the 
Catechism ; in the absence of the Priests to 
baptize infants ; to preach, if admitted thereto 
by the Bishop ; to search for the sick, poor, and 
impotent people of the parish, that they may 
be relieved." * All this, we believe, is strictly in 
conformity with the spirit of the institution, 
which seems to have been established on an 
emergency, and to have had a character of flexi- 
bility and adaptation to various modes of action 
within the sphere of an office which was in- 
tended to be subordinate to a higher. 

2. The existence of an order of Elders or 
Presbyters in the Church, and the nature of its 
functions, are very distinctly traceable in the 
Scripture records. The time and occasion of 
their first appointment are not, indeed, as in 



Office for the Ordering of Deacons. 



70 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 



the case of the Deacons, specified.* But the 
fact that they were appointed and ordained by 
the Apostles, and that they were permanent offi- 
cers in the Church, is so abundantly evident in 
the word of God that the opponents of Episcopacy 
contend that they were the one only order of 
Ministers in the Church of Christ, invested with 
all the authority and exercising all the functions 
which appertain to a permanent Ministry of 
Apostolic appointment. Wherever they went 
preachiog the Gospel, they established churches ; 
and they " ordained Elders in every Church ; " 
and in certain cases delegated the power to other 
officers to " ordain Elders in every city." Ac- 
cordingly, we find " Elders in every Church " 
and in " every city." t Addressed by all the 
Apostles, and found in every city, the fact of 

* But before I make any remark upon this newly emer- 
gent feature in the primitive system, I must first observe 
that hitherto, that is, for the space of at least ten years, we 
know from Scriptures of no order in the Church at Jeru- 
salem but Apostles and Deacons. It would seem that 
this was the policy that was first required, in the begin- 
nings of a Church ; and it seems to hold good also at 
Philippi ; by which supposition we might not improbably 
solve the omission of Presbyter in St. Paul's salutation of 
that Church ; and likewise the apparent omissions in his 
instructions to Timothy. — Manning's Unity of the Church, 
p. 105. See also Palmeb On the Church, Vol. ii. 376. 

t Acts xiv. 23. Titus i. 5. 



AKD CHUKCH UOTTT. 



71 



their existence as a permanent order in the 
Church needs no formal and extended proof. 
The powers and functions of this order may be 
gathered from the charge given by St. Paul to 
the Elders of Ephesus. * They are addressed 
as those whom the Holy Ghost has made 
Bishops or overseers of the flock. They are 
bidden to take heed to themselves and to the 
flock, and to feed the Church of God, which he 
hath purchased with his own blood ; to remem- 
ber the Apostle's warnings to them for three 
years ; and to guard the flock against the griev- 
ous wolves whom he foresaw would enter in, 
not sparing them. St. Paul admonishes 
Timothy to "let the Elders that rule well be 
counted worthy of double honor. 55 1 In the 
same verse some are spoken of as those " who 
labor in the word and doctrine. 55 The same 
ideas of the office are conveyed by St. Peter. X 
" Feed the flock of God, taking the oversight 
thereof, not by constraint, but willingly ; not 
for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind ; not as be- 
ing lords over God 5 s heritage, but being ensam- 
ples to the flock. 55 Probably the directions in 
St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, " Eemem- 
ber them that have the rule over you ; " " Obey 



* Acts xx. 28-35. \ 1 Tim. v. 17. % 1 Peter v. 2. 



72 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

them that have the rule over you," * refer to 
Elders. 

From these passages we learn that the Elders 
were appointed of the Holy Ghost " overseers 
of the flock," and that it was part of their duty 
to " rule well." Each one, therefore, had au- 
thority over his own flock. They labored in the 
Word and doctrine. It was a part of their stated 
duty to preach the Gospel. They were to feed 
the flock of God which He had purchased with 
His blood. They were to take the oversight of 
them, not acting as lords of God's heritage, but 
exercising the paternal government of those who 
would rule rather by the force of their own 
holy and winning example than by authority. 
Those among whom they ministered were to re- 
member and obey them who, by divine appoint- 
ment, had spiritual rule over them. These two 
duties, then, that of ruling well the flock com- 
mitted to him by the Holy Ghost, and of labor- 
ing in the "Word and doctrine — which we sup- 
pose to include, of course, the administration of 
the Sacraments — are those which are appropri- 
ate to the Presbyter. This is the view of the 
duties of the Presbyter which is contained in 
our ordination services. 



* Heb. xiii. 7 and 17. 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



73 



3. That another class of Church officers, with 
other and higher powers, was also appointed 
and ordained by the Apostles, is a truth to us 
so apparent that we should say it were unde- 
niable, had it not been strenuously denied. We 
find these officers to have been distinctly set 
apart with duties specified and defined ; and by 
the latest record of the sacred Canon, we find 
them settled in the Churches, and by the earliest 
testimonies of the Fathers, we find the Church 
to have been organized under them as the Chief 
Ministers and Rulers. This is a three-fold cord 
which cannot be quickly broken. 

As this is a subject which has been treated 
fully, frequently, and ably by Church writers, 
and as my purpose is to deal with the questions 
which precede, accompany, and follow the fact 
and doctrine of Episcopacy established by the 
Apostles, rather than with the proofs of the fact 
itself, I can hope to do little more than briefly 
state the argument on this head, and refer my 
readers to the elaborate works of controversy 
and vindication, in which the attempt to over- 
throw this argument is met, and, as we believe, 
triumphantly repelled. 

One preliminary observation it is important 
should be made. It seems unnecessary and un- 
wise to contend that, during the life and minis- 



74 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

try of the Apostles, every Church in every re- 
gion was regularly settled and organized, as in 
later times, with the three grades of the Minis- 
try, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. In the nec- 
essarily somewhat confused condition of things 
at the beginning, such regularity was not to be 
expected. When the materials for the Temple 
were in the process of being brought together, 
though each stone and beam might have been 
shaped and polished for its position and its 
office in the structure, yet there would neces- 
sarily be some confusion in their accidental and 
temporary positions, before they were fitted in 
the places where each would contribute to the 
beauty, symmetry, and strength of all. There 
were, in the Church of the Apostles' day, some 
offices in the Church which were temporary and 
irregular, designed for the existing inchoate and 
miraculous period of the Church. I believe that 
on no theory of Church government or ministe- 
rial organization is it contended that all the 
various kinds of ministers mentioned in the New 
Testament, such as Apostles, Prophets, Helps, 
Miracles, Teachers, Evangelists, Pastors, and 
Doctors, form so many classes or orders of the 
Ministry, which are to be perpetuated in the 
Church. These titles are regarded as either ex- 
pressive of the temporary duties of those who held 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 75 

a defined ministerial office in the Church ; or 
they are considered as descriptive of offices called 
into existence by emergencies, and ceasing with 
them. It is enough, I think, and all that should 
be expected, to be able to show that there was 
a certain form in which the Apostles designed 
that the Ministry should be permanently fixed. 
That fixed form can be distinctly traced amidst 
the irregularities which float around it. During 
the process of crystallization, though we may be 
able to tell, from the nucleus around which the 
work has commenced, what the form of the 
crystallized body will ultimately be, we yet ex- 
pect to find that kind and degree of confusion 
which belongs to incompleteness. 

We have seen that St. Paul ordained Elders 
"in every Church" and "in every city." We 
shall see that he also appointed another class 
of officers, with larger powers over Presbyters 
themselves, and over the Churches in which 
they ministered. The character of these offi- 
cers, and the extent of their powers, are thus 
stated by him who has earned the title of judi- 
cious, by Dot being extreme — the calm and large- 
minded Hooker. 

"A Bishop," says he, "is a minister of God, 
unto whom, with permanent continuance, there 
is given, not only power of administering the 



76 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

word and sacraments, which power other Pres- 
byters have, but also a further power to ordain 
ecclesiastical persons, and a power of chiefty in 
government over presbyters as well as laymen, a 
power to be, by way of jurisdiction, a pastor 
even to pastors themselves. So that his office 
as he is a presbyter or pastor consisteth in 
those things which are common unto him with 
other pastors, as in ministering the word and 
sacraments ; but those things incident unto his 
office which do properly make him a Bishop 
cannot be common unto him with other pastors. 
Now, even as pastors, so likewise Bishops, being 
principal pastors, are either at large or else with 
restraint : at large, when the subject of their 
regimen (government) is indefinite, and not 
tied to any certain place ; Bishops with re- 
straint are they whose regimen over the 
Church is contained within some definite local 
compass, beyond which compass their jurisdic- 
tion reacheth not. Such therefore we always 
mean, when we speak of that regimen by 
Bishops, which we hold a thing most lawful, 
divine, and holy, in the Church of Christ." * 

The power to ordain Elders, exercised by St. 
Paul, was by him authorized to Timothy and 



* Hooker's Works, Vol. iii. 117. 



I 



AND CHUECH UNITY. 77 

Titus. " For this cause left I thee in Crete, 
that thou shouldest set in order the things that 
are wanting ; and ordain elders in every city, as 
I have appointed thee." * The language is 
very explicit. He had appointed him for 
this cause, among others, " that he should or- 
dain elders in every city." The same authority 
was conferred on Timothy. " The things which 
thou hast heard ot me among many witnesses, 
the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall 
be able to teach others also."f Here is a gen- 
eral direction authorizing Timothy to commit 
to others authority to teach the great truths 
and doctrines which Timothy had learned from 
him. In the direction to lay hands suddenly 
on no man, $ we find a more specific statement 
of the mode in which these faithful men should 
be authorized to teach others also. It was by 
laying on of hands. 

And this power entrusted to Timothy and 
Titus, we are prepared to contend, was not as- 
signed to, nor exercised by, Presbyters or peo- 
ple. 

The appointment of the seven Deacons men- 
tioned in the sixth chapter of the Acts of the 
Apostles has been called an election by the peo- 



* Titus i. 5. \2 Tim. ii. 2. % 1 Tim. v. 22. 



78 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

pie, not an ordination by the Apostles. It is not 
the obvious and natural meaning of the passage. 
The Disciples were to look out seven men of 
honest report. The Apostles relied upon the 
testimony of the Church to the good character 
and fitness of the selected seven. " Whom we 
may appoint over this business." The people se- 
lected, and the Apostles appointed and ordained. 
And this previous approval is by St. Paul to 
Timothy declared necessary. Before they use 
the office of a Deacon, they must first be 
"proved or examined and found blameless." 
" Then let them use the office of a Deacon." * 
But that the ordination itself was with the 
Apostles the record of the Acts explicitly as- 
serts. When the Brethren had selected the 
seven, " they set them before the Apostles, who 
prayed and laid their hands upon them." f 

The word " ordaining " in the sixteenth chapter 
of the Acts is said to be erroneously translated. 
After Paul and Barnabas had preached the 
Gospel in certain cities of Asia, they returned 
to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, confirming the 
souls of the Disciples, exhorting them to continue 
in the faith and (as it is translated) " ordaining 
elders in every church." It is contended that 



* 1 Tim. iii. 10. 



f Acts vi. 6. 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



79 



the word rendered ordained is one which denotes 
election by the people, inasmuch as it comes 
from a verb which signifies to hold up the hand 
in voting. The criticism is frivolous. The 
verse announces not what the people did, but 
what the Apostles did. The passage may not 
authorize the sense of the word ordain ; but it 
will not admit that of appointment by vote. It 
may perhaps admit of only the general an- 
nouncement that the Apostles appointed elders 
in every church. The mode of their appoint- 
ment we must then look for elsew T here. "We 
find it to have been by ordination or laying on 
of hands. Either translation would not exclude 
the agency of the people, in the selection or sanc- 
tion by them, of the persons appointed to be 
Presbyters. The passage is one which would 
throw no light on that subject. 

We may remark further that, though the ety- 
mology of the word strictly signifies " appoint- 
ment by holding up the hand to vote," yet it is per- 
fectly analogous with the history of all language, 
that a word used to signify appointment in a 
certain way should come to signify merely the 
general idea of appointment without reference to 
the mode. The use of the Greek word which 
signifies to ostracize is one case in point out of a 
thousand. It signified technically to banish from 



80 PftOTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTKIKE 

the city by a certain mode of voting by shells 
in an urn. But it also came to signify the gen- 
eral idea of banishment by whatever mode. 

" It is worthy of remark," says Dr. Chapin, 
" that the same word is used in the subscriptions 
to the Epistle to Timothy and Titus, supposed 
to have been added about the third or fourth 
century, when there could be no doubt that it 
signified ordination by a Bishop ; and that it is 
used in the same sense by the Greek Church to 
the present day." * 

Two passages have been claimed as instances 
of ordination by Presbyters. We dismiss them 
with a brief remark, because they have been 
subjected to a searching scrutiny in the contro- 
versies on Church government ; and to those 
controversies we confidently refer. 

The first passage claimed is Acts xiii. 1, 2, 3. 
Five persons called Prophets and Teachers at 
Antioch, among whom are Barnabas and Saul, 
are directed by the Holy Ghost, " Separate me 
Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I 
have called them." Accordingly, the other three 
laid their hands upon them, after fasting and 
prayer, and sent them away. It is perfectly 
evident that this was not an ordination, but a 



* Chapin, Primitive Church, p. 158. 



AXD CHUKCH UKITY. 



81 



solemn designation to a specific missionary 
work. The completion of this work is recorded 
in Acts xiv. 26, "and thence sailed to Antioch, 
from whence they had been recommended to the 
grace of God, for the work which they had ful- 
filled." 

The next passage claimed for Presbyterian 
ordination is in 1st Tim. iv. 14 : " Neglect not 
the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by 
prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the 
presbytery." On this passage I content myself 
with two brief remarks. First, I observe that it 
is not certain whether the word translated Pres- 
bytery means an office or a collection of officers. 
Secondly, whatever may be its meaning, it can- 
not do away with St. Paul's explicit avowal that 
the gift in the possession of Timothy came from 
him : "Stir up the gift that is in thee by the 
putting on of my hands." (2 Tim. i. 6.) 

The power of "chiefty in government" over 
Presbyters as well as laymen is another part of 
the peculium of the office of a Bishop, which is 
gathered from the instructions given by St. Paul 
to Timothy and Titus. Titus was to exhort, and 
rebuke with all authority (ii. 15), and, if neces- 
sary, to do it sharply, yea, to stop their mouths, 
i. e. to put them to silence ; by which we under- 
stand that he was to deprive them of their au- 
6 



82 PKOTESTAKT EPISCOPAL DOCTKINE 



tliority to preach. He was also directed to re- 
ject heretics (iii. 10), and to suffer no man to 
despise him (ii. 15). At Ephesus we find Tim- 
othy possessed of power quite as ample. Very 
peculiar directions were given to him, probably 
because he was very young, concerning his 
treatment of Presbyters and Deacons — "that he 
might know how to behave himself in the house 
of God." (1 Tim. iii. 15.) He was to charge 
some that they "teach no other doctrine." (1 
Tim. i. 3.) He was to count the Presbyter that 
ruled well "worthy of double honor" (1 Tim. v. 
17), and not to receive an accusation against a 
Presbyter except in the presence of two wit- 
nesses (1 Tim. v. 19).* 

IS- ow, we find that the powers of the Elder, as 
defined by St. Paul in his parting charge to 
those at Ephesus, include no jurisdiction, singly 
or collectively, over elders. To Titus and Tim- 
othy alone, or to those occupying the same po- 
sition, is attributed the authority which desig- 



* See also 1 Tim. i. 3 ; 1 Tim. i. 18. The third chapter 
throughout is a description of the kind of persons Timothy 
is directed to admit as Bishops, or elders and deacons. 2 
Tim. ii. 14 ; 1 Tim. v. 20 ; 2 Tim. iv. 2. From these and 
several other passages in these Epistles, it will be seen that 
Timothy and Titus exercised authority not only over the 
Deacons, but also, no less, over the people. 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



83 



nates them jpastores pastorum, pastors of the 
pastors. 

Great efforts have been made to show that 
Timothy and Titus were but Evangelists, not 
having any permanent authority in Crete and 
Ephesus. I am compelled to refer to the large 
controversies which have been waged on this 
question, with great confidence that an impartial 
mind will be compelled to confess that the point 
so strenuously labored has not been proved. I 
can but briefly state the reply to the assertion 
that Timothy and Titus were temporary officers 
in the Church of Ephesus and Crete, in the lan- 
guage of Bishop Stillingfleet, at a later period 
than that in which he composed the Irenicum ; 
and in that of the learned Scultetus, of the Pal- 
atinate, in his remarks upon the Epistles to 
Timothy and Titus (translated by Bishop Hall), 
who testified to an institution which he did not 
himself enjoy. 

"What is the reason," says Bishop Stilling- 
fleet, in his " Unreasonableness of Separation," 
" that the framers of our ordination service ex- 
press it there from the Apostles' times, but that 
they believed that while the Apostles lived they 
managed the affairs of government themselves, 
but as they withdrew they did, in some churches 
sooner and in others later, as their own con- 



84 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

tinuance, the condition of the churches, and the 
quality of persons were, commit the care and 
government of the churches to such persons 
whom they appointed thereto? of whom we 
have an uncontrolable evidence in the case of 
Timothy and Titus; for their care of govern- 
ment was a distinct thing from the office of an 
Evangelist ; and all their removes do not in- 
validate this ; for while the Apostles lived, it is 
probable there were no fixed Bishops, or but 
few." 

"In these Epistles," says Scultetus, "St. 
Paul does not prescribe the duty of gathering 
together a church, which was the duty of an 
Evangelist ; but the manner of governing a 
church already gathered, which is the duty of a 
Bishop ; and all the precepts of the Epistles are 
so conformable hereunto as that they are not 
referred in especial to Timothy and Titus, but 
in general to all Bishops, and therefore in no 
wise do they suit the temporary power of Evan- 
gelists." 

The whole power of administering confirma- 
tion is often spoken of as part of the peculium 
of the Episcopate. I have followed the exam- 
ple of Hooker in stating the superiority of the 
Bishops over the Presbyters to consist in the 
power of ordination and chiefty in government. 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



85 



The power to confirm stands on a somewhat 
different footing from that of ordination and 
government. The highest order of the minis- 
try, in the persons of Timothy and Titus, is 
expressly authorized to exercise these functions. 
We are not aware of any record which expressly 
commands or by implication involves the per- 
formance of the rite of confirmation exclusively 
by those to whom the power of ordination and 
chief government was entrusted. In the ab- 
sence of this, however, we have an example in 
Scripture of the performance of the rite by the 
Apostles ; and our Church has, with great pro- 
priety, limited the performance of it to that 
highest order of the ministry to which has 
been entrusted the highest powers, and who are 
most like the Apostles in authority and office. 

And now, having stated the argument for 
Episcopacy, as an institution established by the 
Apostles, the question arises, was it intended to 
be permanent? And on this subject let Hooker 
speak. 

" What need we," says Hooker, * " to seek 
for proofs that the Apostles who began this 
order of regimen of Bishops did it not but 
by divine instinct, when without such direction 
things of far less weight and moment they at- 
* Hooker, vol. ii., page 145. 



86 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 



tempted not ? Paul and Barnabas did not open 
their months to the Gentiles till the Spirit had 
said, Separate me Paul and Barnabas * for the 
work whereunto I have sent them. The Eunuch 
by Philip t was neither baptized nor instructed 
before the Angel of God was sent to give him 
notice that so it pleased the Most High. In 
Asia, Paul and the rest were silent because the 
Spirit forbade them to speak. J 

" When they intended to have seen Bithynia, 
they staid their journey, the Spirit not giving 
them leave to go. But Timothy was employed 
in those Episcopal affairs of the Church, about 
which the Apostle St. Paul used him, the Holy 
Ghost gave special charge for his ordination, 
and prophetical intelligence more than once, 
what success the same would have. And shall 
we think that James was made Bishop of Jeru- 
salem, Evodias Bishop of the Church of Anti- 
och, the Angels in the churches of Asia Bishops, 
that Bishops everywhere were appointed to 
take away factious contentions and schisms 
without some like divine instigation and direc- 
tion of the Holy Ghost ? Wherefore let us not 
fear to be herein bold and peremptory, that if 
anything in the Church's government, surely 



* Acts xiii. 2. f Acts viii - 26. X Acts xvi - 6 > Acts xvi. 7. 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



87 



the first institution of Bishops was from heaven, 
was even of God, the Holy Ghost was the 
author of it." * 

To these most weighty observations I add a 
few other arguments, which will bear, I am con- 
fident, to be closely scanned. 

1. I remark that the Saviour commissioned 
His Apostles to organize His kingdom, and that 
His transfer of plenary powers to them to organ- 
ize His Church, is as clear a sanction to it as or- 
ganized by them, as if His express approval had 
been given after its organization. When the 
Saviour writes at the beginning of the Church's 
constitution, " Know all men that I have com- 
missioned and inspired My Apostles to con- 
struct the following instrument," it has His 
sanction, as clearly as if He had written upon it, 
after it was completed, the word " approved." 

2. We remark that those who admit that 
Episcopacy existed in Apostolic times, by Apos- 
tolic appointment, are bound to show some pas- 
sages which intimate that it was not intended 
for permanence ; or to show some reason why 
it must have been temporary in its character. 
They can show reasons why Christ's injunction 
to the Disciples to wash each others' feet, and 



Hooker's Works, vol. ii., page 146. 



88 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

the custom of anointing the sick with oil, were 
not intended to be perpetual. They should 
show as good reason for supposing that Epis- 
copacy was to be a temporary institution. This 
we think cannot be done. 

3. We remark that the earliest Christian re- 
mains show two facts. The first fact is, that 
Episcopacy always existed after the Apostles ; 
and the second fact is, that the Fathers who tes- 
tify to its existence believed it to be of Apostolic 
appointment and obligation. I confidently re- 
fer all who have doubts on this subject, and 
wish to settle them, to the discussions and con- 
troversies concerning it. Episcopacy as a fact 
must be admitted by all thorough inquirers 
on this subject. If it be found as an existing 
fact in the Apostles' times, and by the agency 
of the Apostles, where is the authority for 
changing it ? 

Now, all this shows that Episcopalians, for the 
most part, hold to their view of the ministry, as 
a matter of conscience and of duty. Believing 
Episcopacy to be of Apostolic appointment, 
under the direction, commission, and inspiration 
of the Saviour, they do not consider it a matter 
of small moment that it should be abandoned. 
For themselves, they feel it to be necessary ; and 
while many of them admit that other churches 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



89 



which hold to the truth and Sacraments of the 
Saviour are true churches, they feel that they 
lose much in losing the Episcopacy. 

Now the question may arise, Why should I, 
with this view of Episcopacy as Apostolic in 
its appointment, feel called upon to make the 
public, distinct, and emphatic declaration that 
churches and Sacraments may exist without it ? 
It is a large question, to which a brief answer 
only can be given. 

1. I do it, then, because the Church and her 
authorized expounders have done it repeatedly 
in times past ; and I feel that I most fully par- 
take of her spirit when I imitate her example. 

2. I do it, because I do not think we ought to 
remain in doubt about the religious condition 
of such a vast majority of professing Christen- 
dom around us. We ought to decide whether 
they are within or without Covenant privileges ; 
whether they are, or not, a part of Christ's vis- 
ible kingdom. If they are left to uncovenanted 
mercies, without a Church, without a ministry, 
without Sacraments, without the promises of 
grace and salvation, we ought to know it ; we 
ought to be deepfy distressed and agitated by 
the fact ; we ought, instead of turning from 
them and saying, "I know not and I care not 
whether or no they are within the pale of sal- 



90 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 



vation," definitely to determine the question ; 
and if we conclude they are not, then we ought 
most strenuously to endeavor to get them into 
our Church. I say it in all Christian serious- 
ness, if I believed, as some do, that Episcopacy 
is so essential to the Church's existence as that 
there can be no covenanted salvation, no church, 
no Sacraments, no grace without it, then I 
should feel compelled to make the same efforts 
to bring into our communion the Presbyterian 
and Baptist and Methodist churches as Roman- 
ists employ to win all Protestants. And I do 
not see how those who take this view can recon- 
cile it to their consciences to leave such vast 
numbers of Christians, so-called, of other de- 
nominations, to a fate so deplorable as they ap- 
prehend for them. Not having such apprehen- 
sions, wishing indeed that they were Episcopa- 
lians, feeling that it would be better far, for the 
Christian world, if they were, but rejoicing, — 
yea therein "I do rejoice and will rejoice," — 
that they are the children of God, I can most 
heartily utter for them, as my brethren in Christ, 
united in the " one Lord, one faith, one Bap- 
tism," the large prayer of the Apostle, " Grace 
be with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ 
in sincerity. Amen." Again, I say, Amen and 
Amen ! 



AND CHUECH UNITY. 



91 



3. And, again, I would make this statement, 
because it is the opinion that our Church denies 
Church existence and privileges to those who 
have not the Episcopacy which renders her so 
obnoxious to the Christian world around us. I 
would have our Church loved, and not hated ; 
honored, and not despised by good men. Espe- 
cially if she is obnoxious because of misappre- 
hension as to her true character, I would have 
that misapprehension corrected. 

4. And, again, I would make this statement, 
because of duty to our Church, because I would 
have her to become more influential and useful. 
This idea of her exclusiveness it is, which hin- 
ders her influence, prevents the extension of her 
healthful, sober, and conservative spirit. Nay, 
it is this which prevents candid attention to 
her claims to an Apostolic ministry. When we 
come before the public, denying the very Chris- 
tian character of other churches and individu- 
als, we seem to talk in the dialect of Rome, and 
other Christians think we are simply absurd on 
this subject, and will give no heed to us. I 
would remove this barrier to the extension of 
the usefulness and influence of the Church. 

5. And, lastly, I would make this statement 
because it seems to me that the exclusive view 
does not tend to produce a large-hearted and 



92 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE. 



large-minded Christian. Any style of Church- 
manship which prevents a glad and cordial rec- 
ognition of the Christian character of the breth- 
ren of other denominations who show forth the 
fruits of the spirit could not meet the approba 
tion of St. Paul. As many as are led by the 
Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 



III. 

THE RELATION OF EPISCOPACY 

TO THE 

BEING OF THE CHURCH. 



Three principal views on the subject of Episcopacy. — 
The analogy of civil government considered. — Another 
analogy adduced. — Distinction between the completeness 
and the existence, the being and well-being of the Church. 
Testimonies in favor of the existence of Churches non- 
Episcopally constituted. — The testimony of Lord Bacon, of 
Mr. Hallam, of Mr. Keble, of Cranmer, of Jewel, of all 
the bishops in a " declaration." — The conduct of Cranmer 
and his associates toward foreign divines and Churches. — 
Archbishop Whitgift's testimony — Bishop Cooper' s — Hook- 
er's. — Introduction of the doctrine of Exclusive Episco- 
pacy. — Introduced by Laud. — Never became the doctrine 
of the English Church, or of its chief divines. — Bishop 
White's testimony. 



CHAPTEE III. 



In the preceding chapter, I briefly stated and 
endeavored to prove the fact that the Apostles 
distributed ministerial power among the three 
orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. I now 
propose to consider whether this arrangement, 
though instituted by the Apostles as the per- 
manent polity of the Church, is necessary to 
the existence of the Church and Sacraments, or 
only necessary to their perfection. 

Different views are taken of the obligations 
of Episcopacy, by persons who hold that it was 
established by the Apostles. 

1. One class of persons hold, that though 
Episcopacy was established by the Apostles, it 
was because that form of Church government 
was best suited to the early Church ; and that 
as it was not intended to be permanent, another 
arrangement may be adopted by the Church 
whenever and wherever she deems that another 
form would best subserve the great purpose of 
the Church's institutions. The greatest mod- 
ern advocate of their opinion is Archbishop 
Whately. The most able book in the vindica- 



96 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 



tion of their opinions is the Irenicum of Bishop 
Stillingfleet. Their view I cannot accept. 

2. Another class of persons contend that while 
Episcopacy is of Apostolic and permanent obli- 
gation, it is not essential to the being of the 
Church ; but that Christian communities which 
retain the faith and Sacraments of Christ, are 
true, though imperfectly organized, Churches of 
the Redeemer. Their view I adopt. 

3. Another class of persons hold Episcopacy 
necessary to the being of the Church and min- 
istry ; and contend that without it there can be 
no ministry or Sacraments, Many persons of 
this class add, that if any are saved apart from 
a Church episcopally constituted, it must be 
by God's unpromised and uncovenanted mercy. 
Against this view I contend. 

It will be my aim to show that the second 
view which I have stated is that held by our 
Church, and is most consonant with Scripture 
precedent and precept. The proposition which 
I now maintain is this : Episcopacy is neces- 
sary to the complete organization of the Church, 
but there may be a Church and Sacraments 
without it. 

The history of opinion would seem almost to 
prove that truths, like kings, will bear no rivals 
near the throne. It seems to be the tendency 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



97 



of the human mind when it grasps a truth to 
make it exclusive ; to seat it upon the throne ; 
and to cast out all other truths as usurpers and 
pretenders. Calm and deep and protracted 
thought is necessary to connect all truth, and to 
assign to each truth its proper place of supre- 
macy or dependence in that well-ordered hie- 
rarchy in which, while some wear crowns and 
others badges of subjection, all minister to 
each, and each ministers to all. 

This remark is especially applicable to theo- 
logical opinions. If, for instance, the grand 
and awful truth of the sovereignty of God enter 
the mind, it is apt immediately to assume the 
scepter, and drive out the other great truth of 
man's freedom and responsibility. If, on the 
other hand, the sense of man's obligation and 
his free will be strong in the mind, it is apt to 
exert its strength in driving out its brother truth 
— in union with which it would be still stronger 
— that we are altogether dependent on the grace 
of God for the power to exert free will aright 
and to discharge obligation. If the truth that 
God demands the affections, the will, the entire 
homage of the spiritual nature, be the cherished 
and dominant Sarah of the heart, then the other 
truth, that he also requires submission to her 
positive institutions, is driven forth, as a hated 
7 



98 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

Hagar, into the wilderness. With extreme slow- 
ness the era seems gradually approaching, in 
which opinions which have torn and devoured 
each other shall, like the lion and the lamb of 
the Millennium day, lie down peacefully together 
in the mind of man. 

Srtiking evidences of this haste and exclu- 
siveness of mind are furnished in the history of 
opinion on the subject of the organization of 
the Church of Christ. This is the chosen arena 
over which armed dogmatisms have loved to 
ride, sounding defiances, and running tilts. And 
it has generally been found that the dogmatism 
has been fierce and dow r nright, just in propor- 
tion to the scantiness and obscurity of evidence 
and proof. Into no field of inquiry can we 
enter with so little hope of saying with effect to 
those who have laid hold of certain opinions, 
" Yes, these are true ; but there are other truths 
upon the subject which modify and limit these/' 
"]STay," the reply is, "if these be true, all other 
supposed truth which would limit these must 
be false." If we say that Episcopacy was estab- 
lished by the Apostles, as the permanent arrange- 
ment of the ministry ; and then add that the 
loss of it does not destroy the being of the 
Church and Sacraments, we seem to many to 
utter a contradiction. I believe, however, that 



AKD CHUKCH UiUTY. 



99 



the statements are perfectly reconcilable, on 
every ground of reason and authority which 
can be brought to bear upon the subject. 

I propose, in the first place, to notice a 
popular and plausible argument from analogy, 
which we meet with in books, and which is often 
and confidently urged in conversation. The 
question is triumphantly asked, "Shall the deci- 
sion of a private man, uncommissioned and un- 
authorized, avail anything, even though he be 
more learned than the commissioned judge, and 
give a decision more truly in accordance with 
the law of the land? " Is not the dicfoim of the 
private individual an empty word ? Is not the 
decision of the judge sharp and awful, with a real 
sanction and a felt power ? How can any but the 
accredited legislative and executive officers make 
and execute the law ? And so, how can there be 
any officers of the Kingdom or Church of Christ, 
but such as have been regularly appointed by 
those commissioned to appoint them ? How 
can the acts of any other person have any 
validity ? Assuredly they cannot ! 

It is presumed that there is no course of argu- 
ment which has had more influence than this in 
shutting up persons, of little leisure for thought, 
to an exclusive theory of the Church and the 
Episcopacy. It is intelligible, summary, and 



100 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

short. It is a convenient pocket-key, portable 
and light, which the weakest hands can carry, 
and with which they can open and shut the 
Kingdom of heaven upon men. I propose to 
give to their statement a brief and fair examina- 
tion. 

I shall show, in the first place, that there is 
no analogy between the cases ; and, in the second 
place, that if the analogy be admitted, it over- 
throws, instead of supporting, the claim of ex- 
clusiveness. 

First, I contend that there is no analogy be- 
tween the two cases. 

1. The Scriptures have not referred us to 
civil government that we may understand the 
government of the Church. It has not said, 
"Behold the constitution of the State. Even 
such must be the constitution of the Church." 
On the contrary, our Saviour has admonished 
us that they are not alike. " My Kingdom," he 
says, a is not of this world." If not of this 
world, then it is not like this world's kingdoms. 

The fallacy of this reference consists in as- 
suming that, because of a likeness in one respect, 
there must be a likeness in all respects. States 
are organized, visible societies, having officers 
and laws. So is the Church. But that the offi- 
cers of the one are to be constituted like those 



AND CHUKCH UNITY. 



101 



of the other cannot be shown, unless it can be 
proved that the objects of the two organizations 
are alike. That, of course, cannot be proved. 
They are wholly unlike. 

Civil government deals with a man as he is, a 
creature of time. The Church deals with him 
as a probationer of eternity. 

Civil governments are competent to inflict the 
full punishment of every offense in this present 
world. Its officers must then be invested with 
penal power. 

The government of the Church has the power 
to proclaim full punishment, as that which will 
be inflicted in a future world ; and to impose 
the spiritual discipline of suspension or rejection 
from the privileges of the Church on earth. 
The final power of reward or penalty is in an- 
other world. 

Now, surely, governments established for such 
different objects cannot be constituted alike. 
Because the Church is like the State in this one 
particular, that it is an organized society, we 
cannot properly say that it must be like it in the 
powers of its officers. I might use the same 
argument in another direction, and every one 
would see its fallacy. " The family is a divinely 
organized society. The Church is a divinely 
organized society. Therefore the officers of the 



102 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 



Church must have the same powers as the heads 
of families." All persons would see the fallacy 
of such an argument. 

We can conceive a class of official persons 
between the governor and the governed, in civil 
society, who would occupy a position precisely 
analogous to that of the ministers of Christ. 
Suppose an arrangement like the following to be 
entered into by the government. I will make 
the supposition, and show that it is parallel at 
every point. 

A benevolent government not only desires to 
retain its faithful citizens in allegiance, but 
makes provision to recover the rebellious to 
their old condition of loyalty and privilege. So 
would God do to us in our rebellion. The gov- 
ernment consigns the guilty and condemned to 
a state of partial punishment. That is our state. 
It is at the same time a state of probation. 
Such is ours. The government announces that 
on certain conditions of repentance and amend- 
ment they shall be restored to its present favor, 
and, after a certain period, to all the privileges 
of citizenship. Similar is God's announcement 
to us. 

And now, to carry out its benevolent designs, 
this government appoints certain officials, wise 
and righteous men, who are commissioned to 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



103 



inform the criminals of its kind intentions ; to 
plead with them to accept its merciful arrange- 
ments ; to instruct them in their duty ; to aid 
and encourage them in their purposes of amend 
ment ; and to gather about them every agency 
which may tend to reclaim and bless them. 
Such is the message of God's ministers to men. 
These officers shall be instructed to form those 
who will listen to them into an order of the 
Penitent and Reformed, with a constitution and 
laws, in which body these officials shall be office- 
bearers and teachers. Such are the instruc- 
tions — such the mission — of the ministry. These 
officers shall admit or expel members in ac- 
cordance with certain principles established by 
the government. Even so must the ministry 
admit or repel members from the society of 
God — the Church — on principles laid down in 
his holy word. 

Let us extend the analogy still farther. Into 
the midst of these condemned subjects, the mer- 
ciful government sends its official messengers 
of mercy. The message is one of mercy rather 
than of government. They are not so much 
sent to govern, as to prepare those to whom 
they are sent to become happy and loyal sub- 
jects of the government under which they al- 
ready are. Even such is the message and mis- 



104 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

sion of the ministers of Jesus. The merciful 
government of which we speak seems far more 
intent on bringing the guilty and condemned to 
a state of mind which will lead them to enroll 
themselves into the society of the repentant, 
than in magnifying the authority and exclusive 
privileges of its agents. Is not this just the 
spirit in which Christ sends forth his ministers? 
The government urges and commands its agents 
to spread abroad its message of mercy and its 
conditions of forgiveness. Even so Christ bids 
his ministers preach the Gospel. The govern- 
ment encourages the amended subjects of its 
mercy to endeavor to win their yet unpersuaded 
brother to join them. So said Christ, in his last 
words to the Churches, " Let him that heareth 
say, Come ! " This kind government shows that 
if there be sincere sorrow and real amendment 
on the part of some who, from inability, or igno- 
rance, or unblameable misapprehension, have 
not enrolled themselves into the regular society 
of the reformed, but have enrolled themselves 
into another which they supposed to be the true 
one — whose objects are the same, and whose laws 
nearly identical — and which they supposed to be 
most acceptable to the government, they shall 
not, in consequence, fail of the mercy promised 
to the contrite and the faithful. Such was the 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



105 



spirit of the Saviour's reply to the disciples 
who would have rebuked those who cast out 
devils in his name, and followed not with them 
— " He that is not against us is on our part." 

Again, this government makes connection 
with the society depend more upon the form of 
admission and the badge of membership than 
upon the officers by whom the one is celebrated 
and the other presented. So Christ makes union 
with the visible Church depend on the rite of 
Baptism, and not on the commissioned Bap- 
tizer ; and our Church testifies that it is so by 
her admission of the validity of lay Baptism. 
In short, the objects and character of such a 
society and such officers as we have described 
would be precisely analogous to those of the 
commissioned ministers of Christ. The great 
object of both would be to get the sinful and 
condemned into that state of heart and life to 
which pardon is promised and reward attached. 
The agencies, in both cases, would be employed 
for this one end. They would be important 
agencies, without which few or none would have 
been won back to a position of dutifulness or 
security. Yet, if from their derived and indi- 
rect influences — if from the agency of others 
uncommissioned, or acting under a false impres- 
sion that they were commissioned — the same 



106 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

repentance and amendment would result, then 
would the merciful human government, as does 
the merciful divine government, approve and 
own the labor by which these objects have been 
accomplished, and bestow upon those influenced 
by them the same blessing as upon those who 
have been won through the regularly delegated 
and accredited officers and messengers. 

We, see, then that the analogy between the 
officers of civil government and the ministers of 
Christ's Church does not hold ; and that a very 
different set of officials, appointed for different 
objects, would be analogous to the ministry of 
the Saviour. 

2. But now, for a moment, grant that the 
analogy were true. Grant that the officers of 
the Church were to be constituted like those of 
the State. Does the reference support the 
claim ? By no means ! It overthrows the 
claim ! In the first place, I remark that the 
nation exists, whoever may be its rulers, and 
by whatever tenure of right or usurpation they 
may hold their office. The existence of a State, 
and of its institutions does not depend upon the 
right tenure by which its rulers exercise author- 
ity. The nation or State exists, even if it have 
no rulers. I think old Virginia did not die and 
disappear out of creation when her royal Gov- 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



ernor, Lord Dunmore, embarked on board the 
ship of war Forrey, and dropped down James 
River. I think Massachusetts showed herself 
to be somewhat alive when she declared the 
offices of Governor and Lieutenant-Governor 
vacant, and took measures to govern herself. 
Moreover, it is a principle universally recog- 
nized, that rulers who have established them- 
selves de facto must be acknowledged, their 
acts must be held valid, and their authority 
admitted. When reference, therefore, is made 
to civil authority, by those who would make 
Episcopal succession necessary to the being of 
the Church and Sacraments, the reference is 
singularly unhappy. It would compel them to 
admit that the Church can exist without any 
ministry, and that any sort of ministry which 
establishes itself in a Church must be acknowl- 
edged true and valid in its acts. Mark — this is 
not my argument. It is the inevitable conse- 
quence of an argument and analogy which I 
discard, namely, that Church officers are con- 
stituted like the officers of civil government. 

And now, having dismissed this analogy, let 
us see what position we have reached, and what 
is the ground before us which we propose to 
occupy. ' 

We have seen that the Apostles, under the 



108 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL "DOCTRINE 

commission and inspiration of the Saviour, es- 
tablished the ministry in the three-fold form of 
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.^ 1 

We have seen that the Bisltpps did not suc- 
ceed the Apostles in their Apostolic office ; but 
that they succeeded them in thte exercise of the 
two powers of chief government and ordination. 

We have seen that while oip Church has af- 
firmed this doctrine, she has not asserted suc- 
cession, but pure preaching an.d right adminis- 
tration of Sacraments, to be the marks of the 
visible Church Catholic of Christ. 

We are now occupied with a^uestion derived 
immediately from the latter fajct, viz., the ques- 
tion whether Episcopacy, though established by 
the Apostles, is essential to the being of the 
Church and Sacraments. Some think it is. We 
think not. We think that this is one of those 
additions to the moderate statements of our 
Church of which we complain. 

In treating of this point, I have thus far 
shown that an analogy, much relied upon to 
confirm, does, in fact, confute the idea that a 
Church and Sacraments depend for their exist- 
ence on the Episcopacy. 

Before I enter upon the proof of the position 
which I have assumed, I would beg to notice 
two things which I have not said. 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



109 



- I have not said that it is no sin and no evil to 
drop, or discard, the Episcopal form of govern- 
ment. I can conceive of circumstances in which 
it would be a great sin, and I believe it always 
is a great loss and evil. 

I have not said that the ministers of other de- 
nominations are as well commissioned for their 
work as those whose ordination is derived from 
Bishops. What I have said is, that a Church 
does not necessarily lose its existence and the 
Sacraments of Christ when it loses the Episco- 
pacy. The analogy which I have drawn would 
rather lead to the inference that when, under 
peculiar circumstances, persons act without a 
commission, their acts would be recognized as 
valid, and their labors owned and blessed. 

It will be noticed from these observations and 
illustrations, that I have not made the admission 
that Churches and Sacraments may exist with- 
out the Episcopacy, on the ground that Epis- 
copacy was a merely temporary and expedient 
institution ; or on the ground that Christ has 
left ecclesiastical government in the same posi- 
tion with civil government, so that various forms 
of church discipline may be equally lawful, pro- 
vided they all respect certain principles laid 
down in the Word of God. This is the system 
of Dr. Whately, which I have endeavored to con- 
fute. 



110 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

Granting, therefore, that Episcopacy is Apos- 
tolic, and intended to be perpetual, I maintain 
the position assumed, on the ground that the 
ministry does not constitute the Church, or give 
existence to the Church, but that it is set in the 
Church as a member of the body. This is the 
ground assumed by the elder champions and 
defenders of the Church. 

Says Dr. Sherlock, writing in the days of the 
Popish King James, in defense of his Church 
against the Romanists, " I know indeed of late 
the clergy have, in great measure, monopolized 
the name of the Church, whereas, in pro- 
priety of speech, they do not belong to the defi- 
nition of a Church. They are members of the 
Church, as they themselves are of the number 
of the faithful ; and they are governors of the 
Church, as they have received authority from 
Christ, the supreme Lord and Bishop of the 
Church ; but they are no more the Church than 
a king is his kingdom, or a shepherd is his flock. 
And therefore St. Paul expressly distinguishes 
the Church from the Apostles and ministers of 
it, 1 Cor. xii. 28, 6 God hath set some in the 
Church, first Apostles, secondarily prophets, 
thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts 
of healing, helps, governments, diversities of 
tongues.' These are placed in the Church for 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



Ill 



the instruction, edification and good government 
of it ; and therefore are of a distinct con- 
sideration from the Church in which they are 
placed."* 

We say, then, that the Church may live when 
the Episcopacy or the ministry is lost; just as 
we say that a man may live and be a man, and 
perform the functions and duties of a man, when 
he has lost his arm. 

We say that the Church is like the natural 
body in another particular, viz., in its power of 
substituting one member for another which has 
been lost. If one member of the natural body 
be lost, another is made, more or less com- 
pletely to supply its place. If we lose the sense 
of hearing, the sense of sight is made to perform 
new functions. If the sight be lost, the senses 
of touch and hearing are wonderfully improved 
and made to perform new functions. So in the 
spiritual body, the Church. If one member be 
lost, another may, more or less perfectly, supply 
its place. If the Bishop be not in it, the Pres- 
byter may do for the body, less perfectly, what 
he could not have done at all had the Bishop 
been retained. If the Presbyter be cut off, 
the individual Christian may perform functions 



* Gibson's Preservative, Title III., Chap, i., pages 35, 36. 



112 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 



which before he could not properly have per- 
formed. God is not less gracious to us in 
redemption than in providence. The law of 
reparation and substitution reigns in the one no 
less than in the other.* 

With these explanations, I proceed to main- 
tain the position that our Church does not hold 
that Episcopacy is necessary to the being of the 
Church and Sacraments. In maintaining this 
position, I shall state — in so short a space I can 
do little more than state — a series of facts and 
propositions which to my mind are perfectly 
and irresistibly conclusive. 

1. I state, in the first place, the fact, that im- 
partial men, historians, and others, who have 
not been interested in the question as a theo- 
logical or polemical question, have testified that 
the alleged exclusive doctrine is not that of the 
Church of England. I refer, as specimens, to 
two eminent authorities, Lord Bacon and Mr. 
Hall am. 

Lord Bacon, who lived when these high claims 

*It is on such grounds, if we remember rightly, that 
Bishop White vindicated his advice for the establishment 
of an Episcopacy — the election and appointment of 
Bishops, who were to ordain and govern in chief — without 
the succession. He regarded it as a case of necessity, for 
which there was an inherent power in the Church com- 
petent to provide. 



A.KD CHURCH UKITT. 



113 



first began to be made, has these remarks in his 
advertisement respecting the controversies of 
the Church of England.* " Yea," he says, 
"some indiscreet persons have been bold in 
open preaching to use dishonorable and de- 
rogatory speech and censure of the Churches 
abroad ; and that so far that some of our men, 
as I have heard, ordained in foreign parts, have 
been pronounced to be no lawful ministers." 

Hallam, to whose fame as an accurate, dispas- 
sionate, judicial authority on historical questions, 
every year adds laurels, thus speaks of the High 
Church party in the days of James and Charles. 
His words are a strong testimony to the fact 
that the doctrines they then introduced were 
unknown to our standard. " They," i. e., Bish- 
ops Bancroft and Laud, "began by preach- 
ing the divine right, as it is called, or absolute 
indispensability of Episcopacy ; a doctrine of 
which the first traces, as I apprehend, are found 
about the end of Elizabeth's reign. They in- 
sisted upon the necessity of Episcopal succes- 
sion, regularly derived from the Apostles. They 
drew an inference from this tenet that ordina- 
tions by Presbyters were in all cases null ; and 
as this affected all the Reformed Churches in 



* Lord Bacon's Works, Vol. I. p. 417. American edition. 
8 



114 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

Europe except their own, the Lutherans not 
having preserved the succession of their Bishops, 
while the Calvinists had altogether abolished 
that order, they began to speak of them not 
as brethren of the same faith, united in the 
same cause and distinguished from them by dif- 
ferences little more material than those of po- 
litical commonwealths (which had been the 
language of the Church of England ever since 
the Reformation), but as aliens, to whom they 
were not at all related, and schismatics with 
whom they held no communion ; nay, as want- 
ing the very essence of a Christian society."* 

So much as a specimen, merely, of the testi- 
mony of competent impartial witnesses. And 
now I give the testimony of a partial witness — 
partial toward the highest and most exclusive 
views of Episcopacy. 

2. Mr. Keble was one of the most prominent 
of the authors of the Tracts for the Times. He 
did not believe that a Church or Sacraments can 
exist without the Episcopacy. But he was a 
man of learning, and therefore he does not pre- 
tend to say that this view is found in our stand- 
ards, or in Hooker, or in any Church writers 



* Balaam's Constitutional History, American Edition, 
pp. 226, 227. 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



115 



previous to Hooker. But yet Mr. Keble says 
that Hooker and his predecessors must have 
held these views, because in them the true 
strength of their cause is to be found ! * They 
held them, but they did not avow them, because 
of their relation to the foreign Protestants ; be- 
cause of the influence of the court ; and because 
they had not, as we have, the full evidence of 
antiquity. Can any man believe a thing so ab- 
surd? These are doctrines which, if held at all, 
must be held as of the very first importance. 
And yet our Reformers, who laid down their 
lives for their opinions, withheld these senti- 
ments from wretched motives of expediency ! It 
is altogether incredible. It is a suggestion that 
could have occurred only to a mind familiar 
with the casuistry of reserve. Never — never 
would the lion heart of Ridley, and the honest 
heart of Cranmer, and the large, noble soul of 
Hooker been guilty of this miserable meanness ! 

When competent and impartial witnesses tes- 
tify that the doctrine objected to is not to be 
found in our standards, nor in the writings of 
those who composed them; and when a most 
prejudiced writer is reluctantly compelled to 
confess that it does not appear in the one or 



* Keble's Introduction to Hooker, p. 35. 



116 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

the other, we may confidently believe that it 
was neither expressed nor entertained. 

3. Coming now to the more direct examina- 
tion of this subject, I state that this alleged 
doctrine cannot be that of the Church, because 
some of the most prominent of the Reformers 
who framed our Litany and Ordination services, 
so far from believing that Episcopacy was essen- 
tial to the existence of the Church and ministry, 
did not believe that Bishops were, by divine or 
Apostolic appointment, an order above that of 
Presbjters. They considered them the same 
order, invested with higher powers, as Arch- 
bishops are not a higher divine order than 
Bishops, but the same order with enlarged pre- 
rogatives. 

A very interesting record of the proceedings 
of a select assembly of Bishops and Divines in 
the first year of King Edward VI. has come 
down to us. The assembly, consisting of five 
Bishops and ten Divines, took into considera- 
tion several questions proposed to them by the 
lower house of convocation. The chief question 
before them was whether Episcopacy was a dis- 
tinct order from the Presbytery, Some of them, 
as Dr. Edgeworth, Redman, Crayford, and Cox, 
contend that laymen had " otherwhiles, and 
may again in case of necessity make priests." 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



117 



Archbishop Cranmer, whose controlling influ- 
ence in settling the Church no one can doubt, 
distinctly contends that Bishop and Presbyter 
were one order ; that a person appointed Bishop 
or Priest needs no consecration to make his 
office and his acts valid ; that in case a prince 
should conquer heathen nations and have with 
him no Priests, he and the learned temporal 
men with him might and ought to consecrate 
Priests.* 

We do not vindicate all the sentiments of 
Archbishop Cranmer on the subjects of the 
powers of the State and rulers over the Church ; 
but surely it never entered into his mind that 
Episcopal succession was essential to the being 
of the Church, Ministry, and Sacraments. Nei- 
ther is there anything in Eidley's extant re- 
mains which implies that he held other views 
than Cranmer. 

Next to Cranmer in point of authority is 
Bishop Jewel. He is the author of the Apol- 
ogy for the Church of England, a work which 
was republished some years since by the late 
Bishop of Maryland. Bishop Whittingham says, 
" This book bears nearly the same relation to 
the Church of England as is possessed in the 

* Burnet's History of the Reformation, Records, Book 
I., No, 21. 



118 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

Lutheran Church of Germany by the Symboli- 
cal books." In other words, it is considered 
an authoritative exposition of the views of the 
Church of England. Now, in a defense of this 
very Apology, Bishop Jewel expressly declares 
that the office of a Bishop is above the office of 
a Priest, not by authority of the Scriptures, but 
after the names of honor which the custom of 
the Church hath now obtained, i. e., the name 
of a Bishop was applied in the same way as that 
of Archbishop and Patriarch, to designate, not 
another divine order, but another office of the 
same order of Church appointment.* Bishop 
Jewel knew nothing manifestly of the doctrine 
against which I contend. Add to these testi- 
monies that of a paper drawn up by Archbishop 
Cranmer just previous to the formation of the 
Book of Common Prayer, and signed by all the 
Bishops, called "A Declaration of the Func- 
tions and Divine Institutions of Bishops and 
Priests." This paper concludes with these 
words, " The truth is, that in the New Testa- 
ment there is no mention made of any degrees 
or distinctions in orders, but only of Deacons or 
Ministers, or of Priests or Bishops." t It is 

* The Works of Bishop Jewel, Vol. II., p. 206. 
f Burnet's History of the Beformation. Addenda, Vol. 
II., p. cxxx. 



AKD CHURCH UNITY. 



119 



clear that these influential framers of the office 
believed that Bishops were not of another order 
from Presbyters, but that they were the same 
order with some additional powers and func- 
tions. Of course, then, they could not believe 
that Episcopacy was essential to the being of 
the Church, and Ministry, and Sacraments. 

4. The next fact to which I call attention is, 
that the conduct of Cranmer and his associates 
toward the foreign non-Episcopal Churches 
shows that they did not hold Episcopacy essen- 
tial to the being of the Church. Cranmer, it is 
w r ell known, was in correspondence for two years 
with Melancthon on the subject of a united 
confession for all Protestant Churches. " He 
sent," says honest and accurate Strype, " letters 
to Bullinger, Calvin, and Melancthon, disclosing 
to them his pious design to draw up a book of 
Articles and requesting their pious counsel and 
furtherance.* He appointed Knox along with 
Grindal to examine it before it was adopted, t 
He submitted the Book of Common Prayer to 
Calvin, and requested him to write often to the 
young king. $ He recommended the use of 
Calvin's Catechism. § He appointed Bucer and 



* Strype's Cranmer, pp. 407 et seq. 
X Nichol on Common Prayer, p. 5. 



t Idem. p. 278. 
§ Steype, II. 91, 



120 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

Martyr, foreign Protestant divines, to the first 
professorships * in the universities of Oxford and 
Cambridge. Through his patronage and instru- 
mentality a charter was granted to a German 
Church under Jno. Alasco, which was not Epis- 
copal, and which was distinctly recognized as a 
true Church of Christ, t The public acts of 
Cranmer and his colleagues, then, prove my po- 
sition. 

5. The next fact and position which I state, 
is that from this time — the time of the forma- 
tion of our standards until the time of Arch- 
bishop Bancroft— the doctrine which we contest 
never was even suggested by any divines of the 
Church of England. 

When Episcopacy was first attacked by the 
Puritans, it was defended by Whitgift, Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, the favorite of Elizabeth 
and the chosen defender of the Church. He 
contends that Episcopacy is an Apostolic Insti- 
tution. But see now how far he is from con- 
tending that it is essential to the being of the 
Church, and Ministry, and Sacraments. " The 



*Stbype's Annals, Vol. II. p. 91. 

t These, and many other similar facts are brought out 
with great distinctness by Mr. Goode in his elaborate work 
on Baptism. 



AKD CHURCH UNITY. 



121 



essential notes of the Church," he says, " are 
these only ; the true preaching of the word of 
God and the right administration of the Sacra- 
ments, for as Master Calvin sayeth in his booke 
against the Anabaptists, ' This honor is meet to 
be given to the Word of God, truly preached, and 
to God, according to the same truly worshipped, 
and the Sacraments without superstition admin- 
istered ; there we may without all controversy 
conclude the Church of God to be."* So 
that, concludes Whitgift, "notwithstanding that 
government, or some kind of government, may 
be a part of the Church, teaching the outward 
form and perfection of it, yet it is not such a 
part of the essence and being but that it may 
be the Church of Christ without this or that 
kind of government." t Now can anything be 
more explicit than this ? It is just the ground 
we occupy — Episcopacy Apostolic, and neces- 

* It is obvious to Temark, how precisely like to our Ar- 
ticles this language is. It shows that we rightly inter- 
preted that language. Indeed, it is the language of all the 
Church writers of that day, as well as of King Edward's 
and Dean Nowel's Catechisms, which were by authority 
taught in the Church. See King Edward's Catechism; 
Christian Observer, Vol. I., p. 155; Dean Nowel's Catechism 
in Burrow's Summary of Christian Faith and Practice, 
Vol. II, p. 412. 

f Defence of Answer to Cartwright's Admonition, p. 491. 



122 PEOTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 



sary to the perfecting, but not necessarj' to the 
being, of the Church. 

About the same time Bishop Cooper, in his 
answer to the attacks of Martin Mar Prelate, 
places the claims of Episcopacy on no higher 
ground. Indeed, Bishop Cooper took no higher 
ground with Martin Mar Prelate than that Epis- 
copacy was a lawful form of Church govern- 
ment.* 

Hooker, beyond all question the highest indi- 
vidual authority in the Church, so far from 
holding that Episcopacy was essential to the 
being of the Church, contends that the Church 
may, if in her judgment there is sufficient cause 
for change, alter the polity of the Church. He 
also admits freely the being of the continental 
Churches, while he deplores their loss of the 
Episcopacy. These views are brought out at 



* " All those Churches in which the Gospel, in these daies, 
after great darkenesse, was first revived, and the learned 
men whom God sent to instruct them, I doubte not bat have 
been directed by the Spirite of God to retaine their liberty, 
that in external government and other outward orders they 
might choose such as they thought in wisdome and godli- 
nesse to bee most convenient for the state of their countrey 
and disposition of the people. Why then shall this libertie, 
which other countries have vsed under anie colour bee 
wrested from us?" — Bishop Cooper's Admonition, 1689, 
p. 66. . 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



123 



great length in the third book of the Ecclesias- 
tical Polity. This work is used as a text-book 
in the General Theological Seminary. 

Thus far, then, we have seen that the doctrine 
of an exclusive and excluding Episcopacy was 
wholly unknown, had never been broached, even 
in controversy with the Puritans, down to the 
close of Elizabeth's reign. 

6. The next point which I make is, that this 
doctrine was first introduced at the beginning 
of the reign of James; and that it was first 
assumed in controversy with the Puritans. 
When our Presbyterian friends complain of 
being unchurched by High Churchmen, I can- 
not but remember that it was themselves who 
taught this doctrine to some of the defenders of 
the Church of England. It was because Cart- 
wright had contended that Churches which 
were not established on the principle of parity 
" ought to be esteemed unlawful and counter- 
feit, that " — to use the language of Hallam — 
" the defenders of the established order found 
out that one claim of divine right was best kept 
out by another." I say, then, to the Presby- 
terians, that it was their ancestors, the Puritans, 
who first introduced this doctrine and a par- 
ticular form of Church government necessary 
to its existence. If they had not taught 



124 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

Bishops Nayle, Bancroft, and Laud this lesson, 
we do not believe that there would ever have 
been a school of English divines to sustain it. 
I know that the Presbyterians have practically 
abandoned this doctrine, but they, and not we, 
are entitled to the discovery of it. If it is used 
against them a little longer than they have 
used it against us, it is but a proper penalty 
they pay for having introduced such a troubler 
in Israel on the stage. 

It has been supposed that Bancroft first laid 
down the doctrine of an exclusive Episcopacy, 
in his famous sermon at Paul's Cross, in 1588. 
I have carefully read it, and am persuaded that 
Hallam is right in saying that the doctrine of 
the perpetual and indispensable government by 
Bishops is not laid down in it. The mere fact 
of the Episcopacy is asserted in no stronger 
terms than those used by "Whitgift. Archbishop 
Laud is the true parent of this dogma. In 1604, 
in his exercise for Bachelor of Divinity at the 
University of Oxford, he broached this doctrine. 
And how was it received ? "Why, he was publicly 
reproved by the University for contending that 
there could be no true Church without Bishops, 
because this doctrine cast reproach upon the 
Reformed Churches of the continent. To Arch- 
bishop Laud belongs, the undivided honor or dis- 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



125 



honor of introducing this theory to the Reformed 
Church of England. 

Now, I think that, having shown that the lan- 
guage of our standards gives no countenance to 
the doctrine which I contest— that the framers 
of our standards never held it, or thought of it, 
but held and thought the precise opposite — that 
the authorized defenders of our standards, down 
to the beginning of the reign of James, never 
assume it, but do assume and contend for the 
opposite ; and that we can put our hand upon 
the individual by whom it was, if not first excog- 
itated, first brought forth into open day in our 
Church — I think that, having done this, I 
would have but to remark, that the standards 
of our Church have not on the article of Epis- 
copacy changed their statements in the least 
degree, and then to leave the subject, with the 
full conviction that, whether or not the doctrine 
be true, it is not the doctrine of the Church of 
England or of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
in this country. Yet I will make a few more 
observations in reference to the subsequent sen- 
timents of the Church of England, under an- 
other proposition, which it would require large 
space fully to sustain, but of the truth of which 
I have an unshaken conviction. 

7. That proposition is, that the exclusive 



126 PROTESTAHT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 



views of Laud and his co-workers have never 
been adopted in the Church of England, except 
by a small school of divines who followed the 
Non-jurors as the Non-jurors followed him ; un- 
less, indeed, this school form a majority of the 
Church since the recent movements of the Trac- 
tarian and Oxford School of Theology. 

In confirmation of this statement, I will 
briefly refer to a few facts. 

Bishop Hall was appointed by Archbishop 
Laud to draw up a treatise on Episcopacy. In 
that treatise, Bishop Hall expressly admits that 
Episcopacy is necessary to the perfection, but 
not essential to the being, of the Church ; he 
fully grants that the continental Churches are 
true, and speaks with abhorrence of those who 
would deny it. " They lose nothing," he says, " of 
the true essence of a Church, though they miss 
something of its glory and perfection." When 
he was taken to task by Archbishop Laud for 
making these concessions, he would not retract 
them, and they are now in his work on Epis- 
copacy.' 55 ' 

* The following is his language to Bishop Hall : f< In 
your second head you grant that Presbyterian government 
may be of use when Episcopacy cannot be had. First, I 
pray you, consider whether this concession be not needless 
here, and in itself of a dangerous consequence. Next I 
conceive there is no place where Episcopacy may not be 



AND CHUECH UNITY. 



127 



Another fact. Bishop Hall and others were 
sent as delegates to the Synod of the Churches 
at Dort, which were Presbyterian in their dis- 
cipline — an acknowledgment this, surely, that 
they were true Churches of Christ. 

Another fact. Several natives of England, 
who were regularly ordained abroad by Presby- 
terian Churches, were permitted to hold prefer- 
ment in the Church of England. This practice 
was afterward discontinued by law. But 
on this point Bishop Hall remarks, that 
" the sticking at the admission of our brethren 
returning from Reformed Churches was not in 
the case of ordination but institution; they 
had been acknowledged ministers of Christ 
without any other hands laid upon them, but 
according to the laws of our land they were not 
capable of institution to a benefice unless they 

had, if there be a Church more than in title only." — 
Bishop Hall, his Life and Times, by J. Jones, p. 158. 

"His Grace (Archbishop Laud) disapproved of Bishop 
Hairs waiving the question whether Episcopacy was a dis- 
tinct order, or only a higher degree of the same order, and 
of his advancing the divine right of Episcopacy no higher 
than the Apostles, whereas he would have it derived from 
Christ himself. Upon this the Archbishop observed, that 
in the judgment of such learned men as he had consulted, 
it was the main ground of the whole cause, and therefore 
he desired him to weigh it well, and to alter it with his 
own pen as soon as might be." — P. 161. 



128 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 



were so qualified as the statutes of this realm 
do require.* And, secondly, I know those, 
more than one, that by virtue only of that or- 
dination which they have brought with them 
from other Reformed Churches, have enjoyed 
spiritual promotions and livings without any 
exception against the lawfulness of their call- 
ing. 5 ^ 

But I must hasten to bring these quotations, 
which might be largely extended, to a close, and 
bring to your notice one circumstance in the his- 
tory of our own Church, which bears upon this 
subject. Before doing so, however, I would re- 
mark, that the opinion which I have expressed, 
that the high views of Laud and his school have 
never largely penetrated the English Church, is 
sustained by the fact that the Oxford Tracts 

* tl When Episcopacy was conveyed by that Church (viz., 
the Church of England) to the Church of Scotland in the 
reign of James I., it was pressed by some that the minis- 
ters sent for consecration should previously be ordained 
Deacons and Priests, their ministerial character being in 
virtue of ordination not Episcopal. But Archbishop Ban- 
croft, the very prelate accused by the Puritans of that day 
of carrying the Episcopal claims higher than had been 
done by his predecessors, overruled the objection, lest the 
calling and character of the ministry in most of the Re- 
formed Churches might be questioned." — Bishop White 
on the Catechism, pp. 425-26. 

f Defence of Humble Remonstrance, p. 69. 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



129 



began their labors on that very ground. It was 
because such views were so little known in the 
Church of England, that they felt called upon 
to commence that series of publications which 
more deeply disturbed the peace of the Church 
of England, than anything which has occurred 
since the days of Laud. 

8. I conclude these quotations with a refer- 
ence to the authority of the venerable Bishop 
White. If any man is entitled to the appella- 
tion of the father of the Episcopal Church in 
this country, it is Bishop White. Now, it is a 
well-known historical fact that when, in conse- 
quence of the hostile relations of this country 
with Great Britain, it seemed impossible to ob- 
tain the Episcopal succession, Bishop White un- 
hesitatingly recommended that Bishops should 
be appointed and consecrated by Presbyters. 
The work in which he recommends this course 
to be pursued is entitled, the " Case of the Epis- 
copal Church Considered," and is now very rare. 
I have had an opportunity of reading it, and I 
quote from it the following passages. 

After quoting the 36th Article and the 71st 
Canon of the Church of England, he proceeds : 

" How can such moderation of sentiment and 
expression be justified, if the Episcopal Succes- 
sion be so binding as to allow no deviation in 
9 



130 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 



case of extreme necessity? Had the Church 
of England decreed, concerning Baptism and 
the Lord's Supper, that they were not repug- 
nant to the word of God, and that her offices 
for these Sacraments were not superstitious and 
ungodly, would she not have been censured by 
all Christendom, as renouncing the obligation 
of those Sacraments ? Equally improper would 
be the application of such moderate expressions 
to the Episcopacy if (as some imagine) she con- 
siders it to be as much binding as Baptism and 
the Lord's Supper." P. 21. 

One more extract will show what, according 
to his judgment (and whose judgment in such 
a case is to be compared to his?) was the 
prevailing sentiment of the Church when he 
wrote. He declares that " this, viz., the opinion 
that Episcopacy was the most ancient and eligi- 
ble, but without any idea of divine right in the 
case." He declares that " this the author be- 
lieves to be the sentiment of the great body of 
Episcopalians in America, in which respect they 
have in their favor, unquestionably, the sense 
of the Church of England, and, as he believes, 
the opinions of her most distinguished prelates 
for piety, virtue, and abilities." 

Bishop White, then, the father of the Episco- 
pal Church, did not believe that Episcopacy 



AKD CHURCH UKITY. 



131 



was essential to the being of the Church and 
Sacraments. 

I bring forth these sentiments because I be- 
lieve that nothing retards the progress and 
influence of our Church so much as the im- 
pression that we deny Church existence and 
privileges to all who are not in our communion. 
I would do what I may to remove an impres- 
sion so injurious to our good name and fame as 
a Church of the Eedeemer. May Christ bap- 
tize us with His spirit ! May we, as a Church, 
repent us of our sins, cease our unseemly boast- 
ings, humble ourselves in the dust, put by all 
arrogant and ungrounded claims, and go ear- 
nestly to work in the midst of the sinful and 
condemned multitudes by whom we are sur- 
rounded ! Then will our dissensions cease, our 
follies die out, our inefficiency terminate. Then, 
when our light shall have come, shall we arise 
and shine, " when the glory of the Lord shall 
have risen upon us ! " 



( 



IV. 

THE CHUECH'S DOCTEINE 

OF 

THE SACRAMENTS. 



The relation of the truth to the Sacraments of Christ. — 
The Church's definition of Sacraments. — Baptism. — The 
object and office of the Articles. — Infant Baptism.— The 
Baptismal service explained by the Catechism and the 
Articles. — The Lord's Supper. — Harmonious teaching of 
the Church in reference to the two Sacraments. — Departure 
from the teachings of the Church. — Their connection with 
a certain theory of the Church and Ministry. — Sacraments 
considered as the exclusive sources of grace. — The doc- 
trine of the immediate and uniform spiritual new birth of 
children in and by Baptism. — Objections to this doctrine. — 
Efficacy of adult and infant Baptism. — Errors in reference 
to the Lord's Supper. — Real presence. —The doctrine 
stated. — Objection to the doctrine. — The extension of the 
Sacramental system to Church forms, edifices, etc. — The 
Sacramental system considered in reference to its influence 
in awakening reverence and faith. — Conclusion. 



CHAPTER IV. 



The subject of this chapter is the Sacra- 
ments. I shall first show what is the teaching 
of our Church on the subject ; and then notice 
the deviations from that teaching which have, 
more or less, prevailed. 

It will furnish a key to all our inquiries on 
this subject, to remember what relation the 
Sacraments of Christ, as first established, bore 
to the truth of Christ as first proclaimed. 

Christ and His Disciples announced the Gos- 
pel : the good tidings of salvation : the beginning 
of his Kingdom. Then, as men repented and 
received the good tidings in their hearts, they 
were baptized, and thus became the known 
members of his Kingdom. Those who had thus 
become His disciples were also to commemorate 
His sacrifice and death, by a participation of 
the Lord's Supper. Men were first to hear, em- 
brace, love, and act upon the truth of Christ ; 
and then they were to own Him, and be owned 
of Him and blessed of Him iu the Sacraments 
His appointment. Let this obvious truth be 



136 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

borne in mind, and we shall the more plainly 
see what is the nature of the Sacraments. 

NUMBER OF SACRAMENTS. 

I. The 25th Article and the Catechism de- 
clare, that there are but two Sacraments — 
Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. The 
Article declares that confirmation, penance, 
orders, matrimony, and extreme unction, " have 
not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and 
the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any 
visible sign or ceremony ordained of God." In 
reference to these two Sacraments, our Church 
teaches as follows : 

1. They were ordained by Christ Himself; 
and the visible sign and ceremony connected 
with each were designated by Him. 

2. They are badges or tokens of Christian 
men's profession, whereby they may be dis- 
tinguished from men who have not made that 
profession. 

3. They are outward signs and seals of God's 
grace and good will toward us : they are out- 
ward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual 
grace. The thing signified is, of course, pos- 
sessed, before the sign is given. " The grace 
and the good will," as the Article expresses it, 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



137 



or "the inward and spiritual grace," as the 
Catechism expresses it, are supposed to be given 
and possessed, before any sign of them is ad- 
ministered. We do not present or use a badge 
or sign until we have the thing signified in real 
or supposed possession. 

4. But the Sacraments are not merely signs 
and seals of grace : they are also instruments or 
means of grace. They are, according to the 
Catechism, "a means whereby we receive the 
same;" according to the Article, "they are cer- 
tain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace 
and God's good will toward us, by the which 
he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only 
quicken but also strengthen and confirm our 
faith in him." 

The sum, then, of the general teaching of the 
Church in reference to the Sacraments is this : 
There are but two Sacraments : they are badges 
of a Christian profession ; they are signs and 
seals of grace received ; they are at the same 
time means by which new grace is given, and 
faith quickened, strengthened, and confirmed. 

Let it be observed that this is the teaching of 
the Articles and the Catechism, which were 
composed to show w T hat is doctrinally true of 
both the Sacraments. These explanations, there- 
fore, furnish a key to the meaning of all the other 



138 PROTECTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

language of the Articles and the Liturgy on the 
subject of the one and the other Sacrament. 
All the other language of the Prayer Book must 
and will be found to harmonize with these defi- 
nitions. 

BAPTISM. 

Accordingly, we find the Article on Baptism 
consentient with the language we have quoted. 

1. Baptism is called a sign of Christian pro- 
fession. 2. It is a sign, also, of the new birth or 
regeneration ; or, as the Catechism expresses it, 
" a death unto sin, and a new birth unto right- 
eousness." 3. It is such a sign as is at the 
same time an instrument, to those who receive 
it rightly, of new grace and blessing. That new 
grace and blessing consists in an engraftment 
into the Church, and the visible signing and 
sealing of the promises of forgiveness and adop- 
tion. Or, in the language of the Catechism, it is 
such a sign to those who rightly receive it, as is 
at the same time an instrument whereby the 
person baptized is made a member of Christ, a 
child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom 
of heaven. It is such a sign as, in the language 
of the Articles, " confirms the faith " already ex- 
ercised, and " strengthens the grace " already 
received. 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



139 



The sum of the Church's teaching, then, as 
found in the Articles and Catechism, is this : 
Baptism has water as its outward sign ; a new 
birth of the soul as its inward grace. The one 
is the sign of the other. The inward grace must 
be preceded by repentance and faith, which are 
the conditions on which Baptism is rightly re- 
ceived. When repentance and faith precede 
Baptism, then it is rightly received ; then it is 
the sign of a thing in possession ; then it is a 
visible seal of forgiveness and adoption ; then it 
is as "a means" whereby "faith is" — not first 
implanted, but — u confirmed ; " and "grace is " 
— not first imparted, but — "increased;" and 
that "by virtue of prayer unto God." 

Now if there were nothing in the Prayer Book 
on the subject of Baptism but this, we think it 
would be difficult to misapprehend its teaching. 
The positions which I have drawn from these 
two documents would, of necessity, be confessed 
to be its positions. But when the aim is to 
show that there are other teachings of the 
Church on this subject, other parts of the 
Prayer Book are brought to explain this part. 
Certain expressions in the Baptismal Services, 
to which, independently of their definitions, a 
certain meaning is given, are brought forward ; 
and the Articles and Catechism are made to 



140 PEOTESTAKT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

take meaning from them. This is not just or 
fair. The Baptismal Service was framed first. 
It is a devotional service. Different opinions 
arose as to what doctrine of Baptism was in- 
volved in it. Then the Articles were framed, 
as their preface states, for the express purpose 
" of avoiding of diversities of opinions and for 
establishing of consent " on this and all other 
religious questions. With the same view, sub- 
stantially, the Catechism was framed. Now 
what did the Church mean by this but to say 
to her children : " You doubt and differ about 
the doctrine of Baptism set forth in the Bap- 
tismal Service. I will tell you just what I mean 
here, in these Articles. You are to refer to 
them, to see just how far I go, I stand by 
what I say here. Doubtful expressions in the 
Service are to be interpreted by what is form- 
ally defined to be my doctrine here ; and must 
not be made to mean more or less." Surely 
this is the very object and function of the Arti- 
cles ; or else they have no object and no func- 
tion. If this just rule had been adhered to, 
there would have been less difficulty in getting 
at the meaning of the Baptismal Service. 

At the close of the Article on Baptism, it is 
declared that the baptism of infants is to be re- 
tained in the Church. Accordingly, a service 



AND CHUECH UNITY. 



141 



for Infant Baptism is provided. This is the 
service about whose meaning there is so much 
discussion. Looked at in the light shed upon 
it by the Articles and Catechism, we are not 
doubtful of its meaning. 

Observe that the Article and Catechism em- 
body the following teaching. Eepentance and 
faith are supposed to precede Baptism, for they 
are called precedents requisite to its reception. 
They are the inward and spiritual grace of which 
water is the outward sign. Then, when these 
conditions are fulfilled, the sign becomes not 
only a sign of a present, but an effectual reality 
of additional confirming grace, and the Bap- 
tism, thus rightly administered, conveys new 
grace, i. it confirms faith and increases grace. 
So that it is settled by those authorities, that 
grace in Baptism is given only w T hen Baptism is 
preceded by repentance and faith. Hence the 
question in the Catechism, " "Why then are in- 
fants baptized, when by reason of their tender 
age they cannot perform them ; " i. e. 3 cannot 
perform the two conditions of repentance and 
faith ? Now mark the answer ! si Because they 
promise them both by their sureties ; which 
promise when they come to age themselves are 
bound to perform." 

We are now ready to see the meaning of the 



142 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

Baptismal Service. The Catechism does not 
answer the question, "Why then are infants, 
who cannot repent and believe, baptized?" by- 
saying that in their case, because of their tender 
age, they can do without repentance and faith, 
and that they shall receive grace without them. 
But what does it say ? Why, it says that they 
do promise and profess these things ! How do 
they promise them ? By their sureties ! 

Now see how clearly the service is explained ! 
" Repentance and faith are always necessary in 
Baptism, that the spiritual blessing may fol- 
low! " says the Church. " But how may that 
be," we inquire, "when infants who cannot 
repent and believe are baptized?" "Nay," 
says the Church, " they cannot and must not be 
baptized unless they repent and believe, or pro- 
fess to repent and believe." No repentance and 
faith, then no baptism. They must profess to 
repent and believe, if not of themselves, then by 
their sureties. They do make this profession. 

You observe, therefore, that the promises, in 
Infant Baptism, are supposed to be made by the 
infant. He is supposed to say, through his 
surety, " I repent — I believe." The sponsor, in 
answering, does not answer for himself. He is 
a spokesman for the dumb, unconscious child. 
Now, as the child is supposed to speak and pro- 



AND CHUKCH UNITY. 



143 



fess repentance, so [he is supposed to be born 
again. As the repentance and faith are sup- 
posed and accounted to be his, so the regenera- 
tion is supposed or accounted to be his also 
As he says, I repent and believe, so the minister, 
says of him, that he is regenerate. When the 
one shall become real, then the other will be- 
come real. When he shall actually repent, he 
shall be actually regenerate. The service for 
adult Baptism is precisely like that for infant 
Baptism. The man says, "I repent and be- 
lieve." The minister, after baptizing him, de- 
clares, "Then thou art regenerate." The child 
says, by another, " I repent and believe." The 
minister, after baptizing him, declares, " Then 
thou art regenerate." In the one case the pre- 
parative is real and present, and the blessing is 
real and present. In the other case the pre- 
parative is hypothetical and distant, and the 
blessing is hypothetical and distant likewise. 

I have thus explained the only difficulty in 
our Baptismal service — that which arises from 
the declaration that the baptized infant is re- 
generate and grafted into Christ's Church. 
With this explanation of its meaning you can 
harmonize all its parts with each other, and with 
all our other standards. 

I feel warranted, then, after an examination 



144 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

of the Baptismal service, to repeat what was 
said before of the Church's teaching on the sub- 
ject of Baptism. All that I add to this state- 
ment is, " That inasmuch as the Church has de- 
clared that infant Baptism is to be retained, she 
has, in the service which admits them to the 
Church, supposed them to exercise faith and 
repentance, and to receive the blessing con- 
nected with them; and has put them under 
such a system of godly influences and nurture, 
as will be likely to make them exercise the one 
and receive the other. 

Turning to the Church's specific teaching on 
the Lord's Supper, we find it to harmonize with 
her general statements in reference to both the 
sacraments. 

1. It is called a sign of the love which Chris- 
tians ought to have for each other. 

2. It is a sacrament of our redemption by 
Christ's death ; or as the Catechism expresses it, 
it is a sacrament u ordained for the continual 
remembrance of the death of Christ and of the 
benefits which we receive thereby." 

3. Bread and wine are the outward part, or 
the signifying sign ; " the inward part, or thing 
signified;" "the inward or spiritual grace re- 
presented by the bread and wine," is the soul's 
reception, by faith, of Christ crucified, as its re- 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



145 



demption and salvation. This is called in the 
Catechism, " the body and blood of Christ," 
spiritually taken and received by the faithful in 
the Lord's Supper. 

4. The Lord's Supper, received by " the faith- 
ful" — by those who tc worthily" receive it — i. e., 
receive it by "faith," is a means of new grace, 
as well as a sign of an inward and spiritual 
grace already received ; the benefits of which 
we are thereby partakers are the strengthening 
and refreshing of our souls by the body and 
blood of Christ, i. e., of the body and blood 
spiritually received (as before described), 
as our bodies are by "bread and wine." 
The requirement made of those who come to 
the Lord's Supper is, that they should examine 
themselves, repent of sin, renew their purposes 
of obedience, have a lively faith in, and a thank- 
ful remembrance of, His death, and be in 
charity with all men. This is what our Church 
bids us to believe, and she bids us to believe 
nothing inconsistent with this in reference to 
the Lord's Supper. 

Observe now the harmonious teaching of the 
Church in reference to the two Sacraments. 

1. Both of the Sacraments are outward sym- 
bolical signs of an actual or supposed spiritual 
grace. 

10 



146 PKOTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRIKE 



2. Both refer to an inward and spiritual grace 
already received, or accounted to be in posses- 
sion. In Baptism the inward and spiritual grace 
is a death unto sin and a new life unto right- 
eousness. In the Lord's Supper, the inward 
grace is an appropriation, by faith, of the Sav- 
iour's death — of His broken body and shed 
blood — as the soul's redemption and salvation. 

3. Again. Both Sacraments are regarded as 
means of grace — as the instruments of new 
grace — on the condition that they be received 
with a certain specified spiritual preparation. 
In Baptism, those who repent and believe re- 
ceive the blessing of " faith confirmed " and 
" grace increased." In the Lord's Supper, they 
who examine themselves, repent, renew their 
vows, exercise lively faith and charity, and 
thankfully remember Christ's death, are strength- 
ened and refreshed. 

These are the three great characteristics of 
both the Sacraments. 

And now I propose to notice some of the de- 
viations from the doctrine of our standards, on 
the subject of both the Sacraments. 

It is necessary to state that many of these 
deviations depend on certain views of the Church 
and ministry. It is supposed that not only 
must the Sacraments be administered by the 



AXD CHURCH UNTTY. 



147 



ministry of the Apostolic succession to make 
them valid, but that then and thus only can they 
bring with them divine grace. Christ is the 
primal source of grace to His Church. The 
Apostles are said to have received that grace 
from Him ; to have transmitted it to their suc- 
cessors, the Bishops ; they have transmitted it 
to their successors, and all the ministry ordained 
by them have received it ; and thus grace is con- 
veyed through the Sacraments, to all who re- 
ceive the Sacraments from them, The Church 
is thus regarded as a corporate body, to which 
grace is limited, and from which it can be dis- 
pensed only through the authorized channel of 
the Apostolic ministry. Several of the views of 
the Sacraments, upon which I shall animadvert, 
will be seen to depend on this view of the Church 
and ministry. 

1. The first great deviation from the doctrine 
of the Prayer Book is that which makes the Sa- 
craments the exclusive sources whence grace is 
bestowed on men. Mr. Keble speaks "of the 
exclusive virtue of the Sacraments as ordinary 
means to their respective graces." And again, 
in a memorable sentence of the Oxford Tracts, 
w T hich is indeed a key to all the system of ex- 
clusive sacramental grace upon which I animad- 
vert, this sentiment is advanced : " We have 



148 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

almost embraced the doctrine that God conveys 
grace only through faith, prayer, and what is 
called communion with God, in contradiction to 
what is called the primitive view according to 
which the Church and her Sacraments are the 
ordained and direct visible means of conveying 
to the soul what is in itself supernatural and 
unseen." 

And again, " The Sacraments, and not preach- 
ing, are the sources of divine grace." 

Here it is denied that grace comes through 
faith, prayer, preaching, or fancied communion 
with God, unless they be exercised in connec- 
tion with the reception of the Sacraments ; and 
that it comes only through the Sacraments. 
Surely it were a depressing thing to think that 
no grace is given to our prayer, our faith, our 
obedience, our humble hearing and reading of 
the word, except as they are exercised in refer- 
ence to or in the use of Sacraments; and that 
it is wholly withheld from us, except in the 
reception of the Sacraments. How different 
this is from the teaching of the Bible and the 
Prayer Book, you cannot but discover. Nay, 
I am sure you must know it is not true by your 
own experience. Tou have seen that our Arti- 
cle speaks of grace as conferred even in the 
Sacrament of Baptism by virtue of prayer. Our 



AKD CHURCH TJ^ITY. 



149 



standards make reception of grace, even in the 
Sacraments, depend on these very conditions of 
prayer, repentance, and faith. This idea of Sac- 
raments, as the primary, and even, as we see 
this writer states it, the exclusive source of 
grace, pervades and determines much of the 
erroneous teaching in reference to both the 
Sacraments. 

And first, we speak of Baptism. Every child 
baptized by a truly commissioned Priest is, at 
the moment, actually " regenerate," i. e., receives 
grace, which implants in him a new spiritual 
life. This is said to be the obvious meaning of 
our service ; and those who do not adopt it are 
considered by those who do receive it recreant 
children of the Church. My answer to this 
view of Baptism must be brief. 

1st. I refer to the explanation which I have 
given of our Articles, Catechism, and Baptismal 
Service, which proves that this doctrine is not 
taught in either. 

2d. I remark that this doctrine is derived 
from language, erroneously interpreted, of the 
Baptismal Service. In the definitions and de- 
scriptions of Sacraments in the Articles and 
Catechism, there is nothing to permit the idea 
that Sacraments can convey grace, without the 
conditions of repentance, faith, and other spirit- 



150 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 



ual exercises ; and that there is much in those 
documents to prove that, in their meaning and 
intent, Sacraments convey grace only to a con- 
scious soul, exercising certain spiritual affec- 
tions. 

3d. I remark that observation and experience 
do not lead us to conclude that every child thus 
baptized, at its first moral development, shows 
the fruits of the Spirit, and always manifests a 
sanctified nature. 

4th. I remark that this view of grace, always 
going with, and through, the Sacraments, and 
operating on an unconscious soul, is just the 
doctrine of the Church of Rome on the subject 
of the ex ojjere operatum grace of the Sacra- 
ments, which our Church pointedly condemns. 
The doctrine of Rome is, that where no bar to 
the reception of grace is interposed by deadly 
sin, there, of their own efficacy, the Sacraments 
give grace, even to souls which exercise no re- 
pentance or faith, and indeed have no conscious- 
ness. This, in fact, makes them to have grace 
and impart grace ; just as a magnet has mag- 
netism in itself and imparts it to other bodies 
capable of being magnetized, unless those bodies 
have already a repeHent principle in them. Ac- 
cordingly, the Romanists administer Sacraments 
to persons unconscious and only just alive. As 



AND CHUKCH UNITY. 



151 



there is no bar in the recipient's mind, they 
think that he will be sanctified by them. The 
same kind of idea seems to be in the minds of 
some who go farthest in the doctrine which we 
contest. The writer whom I have already 
quoted vindicates the giving of the Lord's 
Supper to the dying and insensible, and to 
infants. I think that the admission that grace is 
always given through the Sacrament of Baptism, 
to unconscious infants, is an admission of the 
Romish principle of the ex opere operatum 
efficacy of Sacraments. 

And 5th. I remark that a very recent de- 
cision, under circumstances of great interest, 
has just been made in England, to the effect 
that this is not the doctrine of the Church of 
England. The Bishop of Exeter, a prelate dis- 
tinguished for his attachment to this high view 
of Baptism, refused to institute the Rev. Mr. 
Gorham into the rectorship of a parish because 
this doctrine was denied by him. Mr. Gorham 
was tried by the Ecclesiastical Court, and the 
Bishop of Exeter was sustained. But the case 
was carried up by appeal to the Privy Council — 
the ultimate appeal — and Mr. Gorham was sus- 
tained. It was decided, in this distinguished 
body, of which the Archbishop of Canterbury is 
a member, that it is not the doctrine of the 



152 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

Clmrch of England that grace is so tied to the 
Sacrament of Baptism that every child baptized 
by a lawful priest is at once and really re- 
generate. Mr. Gorham was instituted into his 
parish. 

The question may arise, What then, precisely, 
is the efficacy of Baptism ? I will strive to 
answer it. 

In the case of adult Baptism, the conscious 
and responsible soul finds itself polluted and 
condemned, repents of sin and believes in Jesus; 
asks, What must I do to be saved? and gladly 
hears Peter's answer, " Repent and be baptized." 
He is baptized. By it he confesses Christ before 
men ; by it he enters into a visible covenant rel- 
ative to God ; by it he takes the sign and seal 
of God's promises of forgiveness ; by it he be- 
comes a member of Christ's visible body ;— a 
member of Christ, a child of God, an inheritor 
of the Kingdom of heaven ; by it he is entitled 
and feels himself entitled to the promises of par- 
don and grace which God gives His children ; 
by it his faith is confirmed and his grace in- 
creased. Surely these are large and inestimable 
blessings — coming up fully in meaning to the 
declaration that Baptism doth also now save us, 
not the putting away of the flesh, but the an- 
swer of a good conscience toward God ! 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



153 



In the case of infant Baptism, the infant is not 
always and at once regenerate, by virtue of the 
grace of the Sacrament, as we have shown ; but 
he is surrounded with a system of influences and 
agencies, and nurture, which is eminently calcu- 
lated to make him ultimately exercise the faith 
and repentance which he professes ; and there- 
fore to receive the blessing dependent upon their 
exercise. He is a member of the visible Church ; 
he should be a child of prayer and of Christian 
nurture ; he is surrounded with promises of grace 
and blessing. Nay, I am very far from denying 
or disbelieving that some children may be, and 
are, made regenerate in infancy. We know that 
those who die in infancy must be made new crea- 
tures or they cannot be fit for heaven. Nay, I 
am far from denying that infants may be really 
and spiritually regenerate in the Sacrament of 
Baptism. If their parents have religiously con- 
secrated them to God, earnestly pleaded the Di- 
vine promises and supplicated the Divine grace, 
and, in the act of giving them up to God in Bap- 
tism, have made such a surrender of them, and 
so won God's blessing, by their earnest faith and 
prayer and consecration — I w r ould fain believe 
that God does, in such cases, not unfrequently 
bestow that blessing. But what I contend 
against is the idea that Baptism, when rightly 



154 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 



administered by a commissioned priest, always 
and by virtue of grace in the Sacrament, regener- 
ates the child. 

lord's supper. 
And now I turn to the Sacrament of the Lord's 
Supper. The same views of sacramental grace 
which I have described in connection with Bap- 
tism prevail, in a yet higher degree, in reference 
to this Sacrament. What we have said of the 
one in reference to this subject can be applied 
to the other. But over and above these views 
of sacramental grace, there are other singular 
perversions of this blessed and simple Sacrament 
of the commemoration of the Saviour's dying 
love. 

I need not state again what is the sum of the 
positive teaching of the Church on this subject. 

The additions to and deviations from the doc- 
trines of the Church may be included under 
heads intimately connected, the doctrine of a 
real presence and of an actual sacrifice. 

Let it be observed that there is a presence of 
Christ, by His Spirit, to the hearts of the repent- 
ant and believing recipients— a presence of His 
grace and of all the spiritual blessings of His 
redemption. But something other than this is 
intended by the doctrine, as it is called, of the 
real presence. 



AND CHUKCH UNITY. 



155 



As by the real presence is not meant the pres- 
ence of Christ, by His Spirit, to the believer's 
heart, then there must be meant a presence of 
Christ's Body, either a natural or spiritual Body, 
in, or with, or under the elements of bread and 
wine. Some such idea is held by those who pro- 
fess, in our Church, to believe the doctrine of 
a real presence. 

1. I remark, that the term real presence is 
a Romish term, and is not used in our formula 
of faith or worship. 

2. I remark, that such a presence is incon- 
sistent with the nature of a Sacrament, as de- 
scribed in our Catechism. A Sacrament has an 
outward sign and an inward grace. Now, bread 
and wine are the outward signs. What is the 
inward part? Some quote only a part of the 
answer, and reply, " The Body and Blood of 
Christ ;" but the whole answer is, the Body and 
Blood of Christ, spiritually taken and received ; 
i. e., the inward grace is the reception, in the 
heart by faith, of Christ crucified, of His body 
and Blood, as the soul's salvation. The inward 
or spiritual grace is an affection of the soul. The 
inward part of Baptism is a spiritual thing — a 
death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteous- 
ness. The inward part of the Lord's Supper is 
a spiritual thing — a faithful and thankful re- 



156 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 



membrance and appropriation of Christ's death. 
"What an answer to the question, after we have 
said that the outward part of the Sacrament is 
bread and wine, to answer that the inward part, 
the thing in the soul, is the actual Body of Christ ! 
It were worse than unintelligible. 

3, Again. I remark, that if by real presence 
is meant that the bread and wine become 
changed into Christ's Body, this is directly con- 
demned in the 28th Article, which declares that 
the change of the substance of bread and wine 
cannot be proved in holy writ, and overthroweth 
the nature of a Sacrament. Moreover, the ele- 
ments are called bread and wine after conse- 
cration. 

4. Again, I remark, if by the real presence 
it is not meant that the bread and wine are 
changed into the real Body and Blood of Christ, 
but that His real body is given to the believer in 
or with the Sacrament in some mysterious way, 
then I reply : 

That it cannot be that natural Body of Christ 
which was crucified ; for that Body became, after 
the resurrection, glorified. There is, therefore, 
now no such Body in heaven or on earth. 

If it be said that it is the spiritual Body, then 
I reply, that that is not the body which was 
broken and the Blood which was shed for us, and 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



157 



therefore cannot profit us. But it cannot, ac- 
cording to our Prayer Book, be His spiritual 
body, for that Prayer Book directs us to say, as 
we distribute the elements, u The Body of our 
Lord Jesus Christ which was given for you; the 
Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed 
for you, L e., the natural Body w r hich was cruci- 
fied." So that it is plainly seen that there is 
neither the presence of Christ's natural nor 
spiritual Body. 

5. If neither of these explanations of the real 
presence be admitted, it may still be said that 
there is a presence of Christ's sacramental Body. 
This must mean one of two things — either that it 
is Christ's Body sacramentally, L e., symbolically, 
the figure of His body, or that it is some other 
Body of Christ than his natural or spiritual Body. 
This language, as intended by those who use it, 
cannot wear the first meaning. It must, there- 
fore, mean that the sacramental Body of Christ 
is His real Body, not His natural or spiritual 
Body, but another and different Body, w r hich is 
his only connection with this Sacrament. 

Now, it avails nothing with persons who use 
this language to say, that we cannot conceive of, 
or understand, what such a Body of Christ can 
be. The very sugggestion of such a difficulty 
strikes them as irreverent. They assure us that 



158 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

it should be a matter for our awed and adoring 
faith, and not of our irreverent speculations and 
inquiries. 

If it is a subject of faith then, it must be re- 
vealed. Some good evidence must assure us of 
the fact, before our homage and our adoring faith 
can be directed toward it. 

1. I remark, therefore, that, on the supposi- 
tion that the body of Christ present in the Eu- 
charist is the spiritual body, so the supposition 
that it is a sacramental body is confuted by our 
service, which calls the elements distributed the 
broken Body and the shed Blood, i. c, the na- 
tural Body of Christ. If it is a real Body of 
Christ at all, it is, in the contemplation of the 
service, Christ's natural Body. 

2. I inquire what evidence there is that Christ 
has any other Body than that of His proper 
humanity, described in the 2d Article. 

3. If we take the testimony of Scripture, that 
makes it necessary for us to believe that, if His 
real Body is given to us at all in the sacrament, 
it must be his natural Body. " This is my 
Body which is given — broken for you." 

4. The same remark is applicable to all the 
language of the service in our Book of Common 
Prayer. 

5. If it be said that the expression, because 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



159 



used in connection with, and in reference to, the 
Sacrament, means there a sacramental Body, I 
remark that this is altogether an assumption; 
and that the application of the same mode of 
interpretation to all other expressions used in 
connection with and reference to the Sacraments, 
would lead us into absurdities too palpable to 
be covered up and dignified by the name of 
mysteries. 

Now examine, by the light of these observa- 
tions, our Services, our Articles, and our Cate- 
chism, and you will find that, whenever they 
speak of a participation of the Body and Blood 
of Christ, they intend the soul's reception, by 
faith, of Christ's death, His broken Body and 
shed Blood, as the all of its redemption, its sanc- 
tification, its life, its hope. 

If the martyrs of the B,eformation had said 
what is often, in our Church, proclaimed as true 
doctrine on this subject, they might have escaped 
the flames. Language not unlike the following 
is not unfrequently employed to describe the 
presence of the Saviour at the Eucharist : " That 
which is conveyed into the hand of faith is truly 
and really the natural Body and Blood of Christ ; 
the flesh of the Son of God which quickeneth 
our souls." ' If this be so, then Rojne is right, 
and our Prayer Book wrong. 



160 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

The doctrine of a Priest, and Sacrifice, and 
altar naturally come in and stand or fall with 
this doctrine of a real presence. We cannot 
dwell upon them. Suffice it to say that the word 
altar was studiously expunged from all our Com- 
munion Service, with the express view of doing 
away all impression of a sacrifice in the Lord's 
Supper ; that the only sacrifice mentioned in the 
service is a sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiv- 
ing ; that all idea of a repetition of the sacrifice of 
Christ, in any sense, in the Eucharist, is utterly 
without foundation in the service, and condemned 
in the 31st Article, "On the one oblation of 
Christ finished on the cross ;" and that the at- 
tempt to make of the preacher of Christ's Gos- 
pel and the administrator of his Sacraments a 
priest, after the fashion of the Jews, to offer 
sacrifice, cannot borrow from our services any 
aid, but only constant, reiterated, perpetual 
confutation. The whole system is Romish from 
beginning to end. There is nothing of Cran- 
mer or Jewel in it. 

These views of the Sacraments have brought 
with them into the Church many disturbing in- 
novations in phraseology, and in the mode of 
conducting service, and in various symbolism 
in churches. 

In conducting the service, there have been, in 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



161 



various parts of the Church, several new cus- 
toms introduced. I do not pretend to have 
kept up with the thick-coming improvements 
and changes of our once uniform and simply 
conducted services, so as to know all their 
meanings. Some, however, are obvious. The 
altar, being considered the special dwelling 
place of God, the priest must always turn to it ; 
the priest must bow in reverence when he 
places the alms upon it ; the priest must turn 
to it when he closes his sermon with the ascrip- 
tion, because God is, in some mysterious way, 
especially present there. The altar, on this 
view, must be the most conspicuous object ; 
the pulpit should not be placed before it, or 
above the desk, lest it should be supposed that 
preaching were of higher importance than 
prayers or Sacraments. 

These may be thought to be little things. I 
do not doubt that they are sometimes adopted 
without much thought, and without an express 
intention of introducing erroneous teaching. 
But they do produce these effects. They bring 
along with them the system of doctrine by 
which they were introduced. Well, though 
quaintly, has the subject been handled by wise 
old Fuller. " The true Church antiquary," he 
says, in his " Prophane and Holy State," "is 
11 



162 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

not zealous in introducing old, useless cere- 
monies. The mischief is, some that are most 
violent to bring such in, are most negligent in 
preaching the cautious using them, and simple 
people, like children in eating fish, swallow 
bones and all, to their danger of choking. 
Besides, what is observed of horse-hairs — that, 
lying nine days in water, they turn to snakes— 
so some ceremonies, though dead at first, in 
continuance of time quicken, get stings, and 
may do much mischief, especially if in such an 
age as that the meddling of some have justly 
awaked the jealousy of all. When many popish 
tricks are abroad in the country, if these men 
meet with a ceremony which is a stranger, 
especially if it can give but a bad account of 
itself, no wonder if the watch take it up for 
one on suspicion." 

But these views of the sacraments have led 
to still more extreme and remarkable results. 
The idea, once become habitual, that grace is 
deposited in and flows through material things, 
such as water in Baptism, and the bread and 
wine in the Lord's Supper; and to this idea 
another added, that the Church is a corporate 
body, in w r hich the grace of Christ rests, as in a 
reservoir, then it becomes easy and natural to 
look upon everything connected with. - the 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



163 



Church as instinct with holiness and grace. 
Then the love of symbolism in services, in vest- 
ments, in Church architecture, and in all the 
arrangements of worship is awakened in the 
mind. Then everything connected with the 
building and with the services must have its 
meaning, and convey its influence and its 
blessing. Then the stained and pictured win- 
dow shall teach and pray ; then the springing 
arches and the lofty spires shall praise ; then 
the conspicuous and decorated altar shall sanc- 
tify and bless the reverent and adoring soul. 
Id such a system everything shall be made to 
worship, except the worshipper, and everything 
to preach, except the preacher. 

Some reflections occur to me in connection 
with these views of Sacraments and Sacramental 
Grace, to which I would give a frank and honest, 
but not intentionally unkind or offensive, ex- 
pression. 

1. It is often stated that these views of the 
Sacraments, against which we argue, spring from 
and nourish a humble and reverent spirit, and 
that a rejection of them springs from the pride 
of reason and the want of faith. Now that faith 
seems to me to be most stringent, which lays 
hold of what is revealed; and that reverence 
most true, which is directed toward what is real. 



164 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

If these views are not true, they can foster only 
a misguided reverence and a superstitious faith. 
But, without reference to the truth of the one 
or the other class of views, I cannot regard the 
sentiment as just. Had God actually provided 
this system, it seems to me that it would have 
furnished a far less elevating exercise of faith, 
and a far less adoring reverence of spirit, than 
that which we believe He has provided. What 
would be demanded in the one and the other 
case ? In one, we are led to look for grace in 
the instrument, — to regard the Sacrament, the 
water, the wine, the bread, the altar, the cross, 
as instinct with grace ; to look at it as separate 
from God, though having in it His divine power ; 
to keep our eye down amidst visibilities, instead 
of keeping it up, " as seeing Him "Who is invisi- 
ble." Now would not this foster just that spirit 
which is most alien from faith — the spirit which 
walks by sight — the spirit which demands that 
the instrument which it takes in hand shall have 
in itself the power which is required for our sal- 
vation? Would it not turn the thought from 
God, and make God's precious Sacraments 
what spells and charms and gregrees are to the 
heathen ? But now to look at Sacraments as 
" moral and not physical instruments of salva- 
tion," to use the words of Hooker ; to rise above 



AND CHUKCH UNITY. 165 

the contemplation of these signs, to the things 
they signify ; to be reminded by them of God 
and His spiritual gifts; to use them not with an 
eye on them, as the sources of Grace, but to use 
them as the occasions on which we should fix 
our eye on God and Christ, and look directly to 
Him for the grace which He has promised in their 
use ; to see God in His infinite perfections and 
Jesus in His adorable love and condescension, as 
the sources of all Grace ; oh, is not this the faith 
of the soul which is most pleasing to God, Who 
is a Spirit — and most elevating in its character? 
Is not the reverence which the soul experiences 
when bowed before a personal, almighty, all-lov- 
ing God — oh, is it not more real, more filial, 
more intense, more prostrate, more adoring, than 
it could be, not in the presence of Himself, but 
only in the presence of some instrument sur- 
charged with His grace and power ? We are 
charged with want of reverence and faith when 
we decline to receive these views of sacramental 
grace ; but I solemnly declare to you, for my single 
self, that if there be anything more calculated to 
make faith simple, child-like, clinging, and ador- 
ing, and to make reverence deep and true, and 
self-abasement lowly even to prostration and to 
weeping, than that blessed Sacrament of the 
Saviour's Death, in which, while we break the 



166 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 



bread and drink the wine, we look up to, and see, 
adore, and bless, Jesus, not in the bread and 
wine, but standing in vivid distinctness, radiant 
and smiling, before the soul ; — if there be any- 
thing more calculated than this to awaken hum- 
blest reverence and truest faith, I am utterly 
unable to conceive what it could be ! 

2. Again, it is often said that these high sac- 
ramental views, which come so near to the doc- 
trine of the Church of Eome, are, notwithstand- 
ing, the best safeguard against it. Of course, 
those who make this assertion believe it ; but 
it does seem to me a most singular infatuation 
which can lead any one to adopt the opinion. 

For, be it observed, those who have gone 
over to the Church of Eome, in England and in 
this country, have always first embraced these 
high, exclusive, and sacramental views of the 
Church, and Ministry, and Sacraments. Wher- 
ever they may have come from originally, their 
last resting-place, before entering into Eoman- 
ism, was Puseyism. And what is remarkable 
is, thai in the case of all of them, just when all 
other men saw that they were getting exceed- 
ingly near to Eome, they were crying out most 
lustily that they were never before in such good 
position of security and defence from her. So 
it was with Mr. Newman, a few months before 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



167 



his conversion. So it was with our American 
apostates. Each one assures us that when he 
goes so close to Eome, with the friendly saluta- 
tion, " Art thou in health, my brother? " * it is 
that he may smite that Amasa under the fifth 
rib ; and when we look to see him trampling 
his victim under his feet, we find him prostrate 
at the feet of his promised victim in penitent 
confession, or folded in his arms in fraternal 
embraces. 

For this there is a reason. "When a man 
has habituated himself to the love of Ritualism 
and Symbolism ; when he has substituted for a 
spiritual religion, which takes hold of God, a 
religion of sentiment and fancy, which is apt to 
be strongest where the religion of the heart is 
weakest, which disports and pleases itself, and 
thinks that it is made wonderfully reverent and 
pious, by being occupied with Ecclesiological 
instead of Evangelical and Gospel and Ritual 
knowledge — and when the food of his piety and 
the object of his zeal is Church Architecture and 
Ecclesiastical upholstery and decoration, he has 
formed a taste which our Church services, so 
simple, grave, and majestic, can never gratify. 
He has created a want which can never be fully 
satisfied in our Church, though he may call the 

* 2 Sam. xx. 9. 



168 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRIKE 

chancel a sacrarium, and the table an altar, and 
himself a priest, and gather about him I know 
not what discarded accompaniments of a super- 
stitions service. His Catholic taste and sensi- 
bilities will be constantly shocked by the sim- 
ple arrangements of most of our Churches, 
and the unchanged simplicity of our services. 
He will be likely to go — where it is certainly 
better for us that he should go — into that com- 
munion which buries under scenic services and 
ritual and symbolic observances the truth of God, 
as under a garnished and gorgeous sepulchre. 

Yes — for this passage over into Rome of 
those persons who have embraced the extreme 
views which we have indicated, there is a rea- 
son. There is not only an impulse from senti- 
ment, but there is a constraint from logic. Did 
space permit, I could show how those views of 
the visible Church Catholic of Christ, which we 
have rejected, tend to sanction the claims of 
Eome ; and how those views, which the Prayer 
Book declares, are a perpetual confutation of her 
arrogant pretensions. I could show how those 
views of sacramental grace, ever accompanying 
the Sacraments, play into the hands of Rome, 
and give countenance to her worst corruptions 
of Christian truth and her highest claims to 
priestly power. 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



169 



It may well be questioned, in view of the 
additions to the simple institution of the Lord's 
Supper, whether they do not answer to Dr. 
Newman's definition of corruption by the loss 
of type or norm. If that which was instituted 
by our Lord as a symbol and memorial is made 
to be the thing of which it is a symbol or me- 
morial, there is as wide a departure as is pos- 
sible from the original truth. 

It is remarkable that the three systems 
which profess to take the words of our Lord, 
" This is My Body," in a literal sense, neither 
do, nor are able to do, what they so emphati- 
cally declare to be demanded by a simple and 
reverent faith in an explicit divine declaration. 
Even the advocate of the grossest form of 
Transubstantiation cannot so define it, if he 
explains or expands the words, "This is My 
Body," as to avoid making the statement nar- 
rower in its meaning than are the words which 
he regards as containing the whole and abso- 
lute truth. He must declare that, not the 
whole bread and wine are changed into the 
Body of our Lord, but that only a part of them 
is thus changed. For he admits and asserts 
that the accidents of bread and wine remain 
when the bread and wine are transubstantiated. 
But " that substance and accidents are ever in- 



170 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

dependent of each other is a thing totally un- 
known. Accidents without their substance is 
contrary to all experience." * It is, then, only 
a part of the bread and wine that is changed, 
and it is that part which is unknown and does 
not appear which is thus changed. Hence, the 
priest cannot hold the bread or the wafer in his 
hand and say, This is Christ's Body. It is 
only that which is hidden under this that has 
undergone this miraculous transformation. 

Since the Lutheran doctrine is, that the glori- 
fied Body of Christ is in, with, or under the 
bread, this, in the form of our Lord's word, will 
read: "This hath with it my glorified Body." 
For since the doctrine so copiously expounded 
by Dr. Pusey is, that the glorified Body of 
Christ is present in the bread, or under the 
form of bread, this again, in the form of our 
Lord's words, will read : " This hath with it, or 
under its form, the presence of my glorified 
Body." Thus, therefore, as equivalent to the 
simple copula " is," in our Lord's words, the 
Roman doctrine has the compound copula, 
" has under its species ; " the Lutheran doc- 
trine presents the compound copula, " has with 
it ; " and the Tractarian doctrine, again, has the 

* The True Doctrine of the Eucharist. T. S. Hogan, 
D.D. Pp. 64-65. 



AND CHURCH UNITY. 



171 



compound copula, "has under its form the 
presence of." (Hogan, p. 96.) 

Our development into a doctrinal and spec- 
tacular semi-Bomanism seems to be going for- 
ward with accelerated speed. A recent work 
by Dr. Jewel, Lecturer in Ethics and Evidences 
in Eacine College, with the title, " The Special 
Beliefs and Objects of Catholic Churchmen," 
has stated with great distinctness what those 
special objects are which Catholic churchmen 
are laboring to accomplish. Bishop Gillespie 
calls attention to this work in a recent number 
of the Churchman, and speaks in a tone of grave 
rebuke of this probably most outspoken utter- 
ance of a party in the Church that labors, with 
scarcely the least disguise, if not to carry our 
Church into the Church of Borne, yet to bring 
the Church of Borne, in all her essential prac- 
tices and doctrines, into our communion. The 
Bishop writes : 

61 The ' Special Beliefs and Objects of Catho- 
lic Churchmen' is no declaration of Church 
principles as commonly held, but it is a ' care- 
fully formulated statement ' of the ' beliefs and 
objects' of those who claim to be, as distinct 
from the Church at large; . 4 Catholic Church- 
men.' This is not the utterance of a school of 
thought, but of a party who take the ground, 



172 PROTESTAKT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE 

' we are they who ought to speak ; we alone are 
worthy to be called Catholic Churchmen.' " 
And again : 

"The second leading head is, 'Pious Cus- 
toms.' The force of these goes beyond the 
title. 'By pious customs are meant certain 
reverent or charitable acts and devotions which 
are so instinctively the promptings of the 
Christian mind, as enlightened and vivified by 
the Church's breadth, charity, and devotion, 
that to discard them is a blunder, and to forbid 
them is a superstitious violence not far from 
kin to brutality.' 

"After the exaggerated statement as to pray- 
ers for the departed, we are not surprised to 
find, in the emphatic italic the author employs : 
4 It is our pious privilege, in correlation of our 
prayers and thanksgivings, and according to the 
measure of our faith and love, to plead a place 
in the petitions of saints departed, and the 
acceptance of them in our behalf.' 

"Among the pious customs are, ' the eminent 
propriety, charity, and usefulness of Mortuary 
and Requiem celebrations of the Holy Eucha- 
rist ' — 'Assisting and sharing in the Holy Eu- 
charist without receiving the sacred elements, 
making what is termed a spiritual communion.' 
For 'a reservation for the use of the sick is 



AND CHUKCH UNITY. 



173 



claimed both ample authority and an inherent 
propriety and charity.' 

" The third leading head is c Catholic Ritual.' 
Here we have the 1 special beliefs and objects 
of Catholic Churchmen ' revealed in a form 
that tells where these clergymen who have 
undertaken to place the Church under their 
special guidance would lead us. 'We hold that 
a proper ritual for the American Church must 
be grounded upon, and under judicious selec- 
tion and sympathetic adaptation, derived from 
some existing, cultured, and well-tested ritual ; 
and that, although it is somewhat marked by 
excess and by disregard of national character- 
istics, there is none which, in the main, so aptly 
and fully meets the above-mentioned conditions, 
and our needs, as the established ritual of the 
Roman Church.' So if we would know 'the 
special beliefs and objects of Catholic Church- 
men,' we have only to step into some Romish 
cathedral and see with our eyes and hear with 
our ears. This is to be the outcome of 'the 
Catholic movement or revival.' " 

Very suggestive and significant are the 
Bishop's closing words: 

"We have now the outcome. What the 
Church has tolerated has come to the front ; 
and even men who, in alien households, were 



174 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL DOCTRINE. 

contending against the Church, when those 
born in her pale were hardly contending for 
her faith and worship, rise up to proclaim them- 
selves ' Catholic Churchmen,' with 'the estab- 
lished ritual of the Roman Church ' their ulti- 
matum." 




v. 



I 



